IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 26 March 2009
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080019105
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, in effect, advancement on the Retired List to the rank of Staff Sergeant (SSG)/E-6.
2. The applicant states he was reduced from SSG to Sergeant (SGT)/E-5. He contends the reason for his reduction was post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from his Regular Army service in Vietnam.
3. The applicant provides:
a. an addendum to his application wherein he explains the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has granted him a 50 percent service-connected disability for PTSD;
b. a copy of his 18 December 1970 DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) showing his rank as SSG and his service in Vietnam from 12 August 1967 to 15 March 1969;
c. a copy of Orders P10-389306, U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Command (now U.S. Army Human Resources Command, or HRC), St. Louis, MO, dated 31 October 2003, retiring him and placing him on the retired list as a SGT/E-5, effective 7 February 2004; and
d. NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) showing his service with the Michigan Army National Guard (MIARNG) from 18 December 1974 through 1 June 1991, at which time he was placed in the Retired Reserve in the rank of SGT/E-5.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. With 4 years, 4 months, and 4 days of total active Federal service, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Regular Army by reason of expiration of term of service in the rank of SSG on 18 December 1970. During his active Federal service, he served in Vietnam as an infantryman and an armor crewman. He received the Combat Infantryman Badge.
2. The applicant was without military service until he enlisted in the MIARNG on 18 December 1974. His rank upon enlistment was SSG. He served as a SSG until 2 October 1977, when he was reduced by Orders 21-1, 1071st Maintenance Company, Camp Grayling, Grayling, MI, dated 1 October 1977, by reason of misconduct under Section 15, Michigan Code of Military Justice. This section covers disciplinary punishment for minor offenses, serving correctional custody, imposition of punishment upon enlisted member by officer in charge; suspension, remission, or mitigation of punishment; appeal; disciplinary punishment not bar to trial by court-martial; records of proceedings; right to demand trial by court-martial; and applicability of forfeiture to pay and allowances. The nature of the applicant's misconduct is unknown.
3. The applicant never regained his rank. He was discharged on 1 June 1991 and placed in the Retired Reserve as a SGT. The applicant turned 60 years old on 7 February 2004. In preparation for his entitlement to retired pay, HRC-St. Louis conducted a records review to determine the highest grade satisfactorily held for retired pay purposes. In that review, it was noted that he was first promoted to SSG on 8 January 1970 and held that rank until he was honorably discharged on 18 December 1970. It was also noted that he enlisted in the ARNG as a SSG on 18 December 1974. His misconduct was noted as the reason for his 2 October 1977 reduction. Although the exact reason for his failure to be advanced to SSG on the Retired List is not known, it is clear he was retired as a SGT.
4. Army Regulation 135-180 (Qualifying Service for Retired Pay Nonregular Service) implements statutory authorities governing the granting of "retired pay" to Soldiers and former Reserve components Soldiers. It provides, in pertinent part that the Retired Activities Directorate, HRC-St. Louis will screen each retirement applicant's record to determine the highest grade held by him or her during his or her military service. In arriving at the highest grade satisfactorily held, the following criteria will apply:
a If the Soldier was transferred to the Retired Reserve or discharged prior to 25 February 1975, retired grade will be that which the Soldier held at time of transfer to the Retired Reserve or discharge, unless the Soldier held a higher grade at least 185 days or six calendar months on active duty or in an active reserve status as a commissioned officer or enlisted Soldier. If higher grade held was that of a warrant officer, Soldier must have served on active duty or in an active Reserve status for at least 31 days.
b If the Soldier was transferred to the Retired Reserve or discharged on or after 25 February 1975, retired grade will be that grade which a commissioned officer or enlisted Soldier held while on active duty or in an active Reserve status for at least 185 days or six calendar months. A warrant officer must have served on active duty or in an active Reserve status for at least 31 days.
c Service in the highest grade will not be deemed satisfactory and the case will be forwarded to the Secretary of the Army's Ad Hoc Review Board for final determination of the Soldier's retirement grade if, during the mandatory review of the Soldier's records by the Retired Activities Directorate it is determined that any of the following factors exist:
(1) Revision to a lower grade was expressly for prejudice or cause, due to misconduct, or punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), or court-martial; or
(2) There is information in the Soldier's service record to indicate clearly that the highest grade was not served satisfactorily.
5. There is no record that HRC-St. Louis forwarded the applicants records to the Secretary of the Army's Ad Hoc Review Board for grade determination action.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant requests retirement at the highest grade he held, that of SSG.
2. The applicant was first promoted to SSG while in the Regular Army; he held that rank on active duty for 11 months and 11 days.
3. The applicant enlisted in the ARNG on 18 December 1974 as a SSG. He held that rank in the ARNG for 2 years, 9 months, and 15 days until he was reduced for unspecified misconduct.
4. The HRC-St. Louis should have forwarded the applicants case to the Army Review Boards Agency in 2004 for a grade determination by the Army Grade Determination Review Board. That board would have considered such factors as the grade at which the misconduct was committed, and the nature and severity of the misconduct, if any. There is no record the applicant received such consideration.
5. The ABCMR does not know the nature of the applicants misconduct as his record is silent on the matter, and the applicant did not provide such information. Without such information, it is not possible to render an informed judgment.
6. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
___X____ ___X____ ___X____ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
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.
XXX
______________________
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) AR20080019105
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080019105
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001637
The applicant states, in effect: * he held the rank of SSG for at least 3 years * his military records were lost and as such he was unable to either prove or disprove his contention * a discharge appeals board for the Michigan Army National Guard (MIARNG), convened on 9 May 2014, has since affirmed he was administratively reduced from SSG to SGT due to a change in the unit's Modified Table of Organization and Equipment (MTOE); the board recommended his rank be restored to SSG * on 18 June...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001943
d. He states he held the rank of SSG for 13 years, which was well over the necessary time for him to retire in the highest pay grade he held (i.e., SSG/E-6). A National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows the applicant was separated from the ARNGUS and UTARNG on 30 March 1992 and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement) under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management),...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017218
c. U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center, St. Louis, Missouri, Orders C-06-02539, dated 20 June 1986 (Relief from the USAR Control Group-Reinforcement). He is currently a retired USAR SGT/E-5. In light of the applicants over four years of satisfactory service as a SSG/E-6, and in light of the fact that he was not reduced for misconduct or inefficiency, he should have been placed on the Retired List in that rank and pay grade at the time of his retirement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000296
Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (DODFMR), volume 7B (Military Pay Policy and Procedures-Retired Pay), chapter 1 (Initial Entitlements-Retirements), section 0105 (Rank and Pay Grade), paragraph 010501A (General Determinations) states that unless entitled to a higher grade under some other provision of law, those Regular and Reserve members who retire other than for disability, will retire in the Regular or Reserve grade they hold on the date of retirement. By law, a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083540C070212
Counsel requests that the punishment received by the applicant on 20 August 1999 be removed from his military records and that his pay account be corrected. Applicant's counsel correctly argues that, although the applicant was in a Title 32 State AGR duty status and not subject to the MCM, his two- grade reduction was improper. Immediately following the incident at the firing range, it was the applicant's battery commander who restricted the applicant to the unit area for the remainder of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007930C070208
Carol A. Kornhoff | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant states he was promoted in the US Air Force Reserve (USAFR) to the rank of Master Sergeant (MSGT/E-7) on 1 May 1992 and held that rank until he was honorably separated on 23 February 1998. The applicant's retired grade is currently E-5, but should be E-7.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013481
On 12 September 2007, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, St. Louis, MO, published Orders P09-791175 retiring the applicant and placing him on the Retired List in his retired rank/grade of SGT/E-5 effective 23 July 2007, the date he turned age 60, in accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 12731. In the applicant's case, the evidence of record shows he was promoted to SSG/E-6 on 12 April 1971 and held that grade until his honorable discharge on 25 March 1974. As a result, the Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006872
The applicant's record shows he completed a total of 20 years, 8 months and 1 days of creditable service for retired pay based on active duty service in the United States Marine Corps (USMC) and Reserve Component (RC) service in the United States Marine Corps Reserve (USMCR), Army National Guard (ARNG) and United States Army Reserve (USAR) between 4 October 1965 and 4 April 1994. On 30 July 2009, the Army Grade Determination Board returned a grade determination request on the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018980
The applicant requests correction of his record to show he was retired in the highest rank/pay grade he held, which was staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 instead of sergeant (SGT)/E-5. The evidence of record shows the applicant was promoted to SSG/E-6 on 15 November 1993 and he served in that rank/pay grade in an active status until he was discharged from the USAR on 19 April 1995. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007703
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The Retired Activities Directorate will screen each retirement applicants record to determine the highest grade held by him or her during his or her military service. Therefore, he was correctly placed on the Retired List in the rank and grade of PVT/E-1.