IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 26 June 2008
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080006844
THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:
1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).
2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests that he be advanced on the retired list to the rank and grade of First Sergeant, E-8.
2. The applicant states that he served as a First Sergeant from 24 May 1995 to 31 August 1997. He performed satisfactorily at the higher grade for over two years. He attended all (required) Army schools to advance his career and to be promoted to E-8. After 9 years of not being promoted, he retired. He should have been promoted to E-8, since he was a first sergeant for 2 years and 4 months.
3. The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); three DA Forms 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), one for the First Sergeant Course, one for the Special Forces Assistant Operations and Intelligence Sergeant Course, and one for the Special Forces Medical Sergeant Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course; two diplomas, one for the First Sergeant Course and one for the Special Forces Assistant Operations and Intelligence Sergeant Course; two noncommissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOERs), one for the period ending April 1996 and one for the period ending April 1997; Meritorious Service Medal orders, dated 4 March 1997; release from active duty orders; and a letter, dated 14 February 2008, to the Department of Veterans Affairs, Robert J. Dole Regional Office, Wichita, KS.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 August 1977. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91B. He was promoted to Sergeant First Class,
E-7 in MOS 18D (Special Forces Medical Sergeant) with a date of rank of 20 May 1988.
2. The applicants DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he was assigned duties as a First Sergeant on 23 May 1995. His NCOERs for the periods ending April 1996 and April 1997, during which his principal duty title was First Sergeant, show he received very commendable ratings (several excellence ratings and a potential for promotion rating of among the best) with very favorable comments.
3. The applicant retired on 31 August 1997, in the rank and grade of Sergeant First Class, E-7, after completing 20 years and 29 days of creditable active service.
4. Title 10, U. S. Code, chapter 369 governs retired grades. Section 3964 provides that warrant officers and enlisted members may, when their active service plus their service on the retired list totals 30 years, be advanced on the retired list to the highest grade in which they served on active duty satisfactorily.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant performed duties as a First Sergeant. However, since he had never been promoted to E-8, he was only an acting First Sergeant.
2. It is acknowledged that the applicants records showed he performed very admirably while in the First Sergeant position. Unfortunately, he performed those duties during a time when the Army was drawing down its forces. Promotions came very slowly. While still speculative, it appears likely that if the applicant had felt able to continue on active duty for a few more years, until after 9/11, he most likely would have been promoted.
3. However, advancement on the retired list can only be considered when a Soldier served in a higher grade that would have qualified him for retirement, receipt of retired pay, or separation for physical disability. Since the applicant was never promoted to E-8, he was never qualified for retirement as an E-8. Therefore, it is not appropriate to consider him for advancement on the retired list to that grade.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
____xx__ ___xx___ __xx____ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
1. The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
2. The Board wants the applicant and all others concerned to know that this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by him in service to our Nation. The applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his service in arms.
________xxxxx__________
CHAIRPERSON
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080006844
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080006844
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03094977C070212
In a 23 December 1997 memorandum to the Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center, an Army captain, a legal assistance attorney at Fort Bragg, stated that after a careful review of the applicant's NCOER, the QMP appeal packet, and the investigatory letter drafted by the applicant's brigade commander, that it was clear that the NCOER was unjustly tainted by the unproven accusation of the applicant's accuser, and was not based on the applicant's performance during the period. The ESRB...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077811C070215
A supporting statement from the applicant's battalion commander of his assigned unit in Germany during the period in question indicates that the commander began to receive feedback shortly after his soldiers deployed to Bosnia that personality conflicts were developing between members of the attached battalion in Bosnia and his soldiers. The applicant appealed the NCOER to the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB) on 1 July 2002 and the ESRB declined to accept his appeal because it was not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008623C070208
The applicant requests in effect, that he be advanced on the retired list to the rank of Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7. Headquarters, 4th Brigade, 80th Division Orders 1-1 dated 17 January 1988 reduced the applicant from SFC to SSG with a date of rank (DOR) of 10 March 1974. Based upon the guidance in Army Regulation 140-158, paragraph 7-5b(1), only three circumstances could have resulted in the applicant being reduced from SFC to SSG but being given a DOR of 10 March 1974 (instead of a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065390C070421
He also stated that he understood the regulation to provide that the reduction board could lawfully convene on or after 20 December 1999 (the regulation requiring a member to be given 15 days notification). Notification of a board hearing date will be made only after counsel is available as requested by the soldier. If a soldier requests military counsel, as the applicant requested on 1 December 1999, the convening authority will forward the request to the local TDS official for necessary action.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003382
c. When Military Personnel (MILPER) Message Number 08-033, subject: (Updated) AAA-294 Enlisted Promotion Report Automatic List Integration Section for Staff Sergeant) was issued on 1 February 2008, he was never informed of its provisions and he was not aware of any action by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) to put him on the standing list for promotion to SSG/E-6. The company commander, first sergeant, and the battalion command sergeant major formed negative opinions of him...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087855C070212
He further stated that the applicant never served as a field recruiter, was assigned to the recruiting command for less than 90 days, and should never have received a Relief for Cause NCOER. Paragraph 3-32 of this regulation states that a report is required when an NCO is relieved for cause regardless of the rating period involved. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by removing the Relief for Cause NCOER for the period January 1997 through May...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009761C070208
Counsel also provides Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Proceedings, Docket Number AC98-09329/AR1999016304 dated 14 January 1999, in which the ABCMR awarded the applicant in that case the AGCM because he had never been disqualified for the award by his chain of command. In the NCOER for the period ending April 1996, her rater gave her a "No" rating in Part IVa2 with one negative supporting comment. Unit commanders are authorized to award the AGCM to enlisted personnel...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009924
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show his rank as first sergeant (1SG) vice master sergeant (MSG). The evidence of record shows the applicant completed the 5-week 1SG Course in April 1996 and he served in the rank and duty position of 1SG from November 1996 (the date he was promoted to E-8) through August 1997. However, he served as the NCOIC in the rank of MSG in two different units from September 1997 through...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005948
There is no available evidence showing the applicant's change in rank from SFC to SSG. He continuously served in the AGR program until 31 October 1998, when he retired by reason of sufficient service for retirement. Additionally, there is no evidence that physical health problems were the only reason that the applicant did not complete ANCOC and no evidence that failure to complete ANCOC was the reason that his promotion to SFC was effectively voided.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040005402C070208
Part IVc of the applicant's NCOER for the period ending June 1996 indicated he had a profile effective December 1994 and contained the comments, "SM was on profile due to chronic back injury during the entire rating period;" "diligently conducted PT within the limits of profile;" and "profile does not interfere with assigned duties." The Board concludes that if the promotion selection boards in January 1997 and later did not recommend him for promotion after seeing later NCOERs with these...