IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 5 August 2010
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100000741
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 his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) be changed to show his rank as sergeant first class (SFC) and his pay grade as E-7.
2. The applicant states he never noticed his DD Form 214 was wrong until the Board referred to him as an SFC/E-7 in another case.
3. The applicant provides, in support of his request, copies of the Board's decision in ABCMR Docket Number AR20090004471 and his DD Form 214.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant served first in the Army National Guard. He joined the Regular Army on 13 March 1958.
2. He was promoted to specialist six/pay grade E-6 on 25 June 1968. On 1 September 1975 his rank title was changed to staff sergeant (SSG). He still served in pay grade E-6. There is no available evidence that he ever served as an SFC/E-7.
3. He was separated from active duty as an SSG/E-6 on 31 August 1976 due to retirement.
4. The issue in Docket Number AR20090004471 was his date of birth. The Record of Proceedings inadvertently stated he "was placed on the Retired List in his retired rank/grade of sergeant first class/E-7
" The Board decision did not conclude or even imply that he should be promoted or advanced on the promotion list. However, this document was apparently interpreted as a directive to do so. The issue of his date of birth was denied.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant states he never noticed his DD Form 214 was wrong until the Board referred to him as an SFC/E-7 in another case.
2. Notwithstanding the observation in Docket Number AR20090004471, the applicant never served as an SFC/E-7.
3. There is no documentation to support the applicant's request and no rationale to support the conclusion that the circumstance warrants the requested relief.
4. In view of the foregoing there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
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.
____________x_____________
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) AR20100000741
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100000741
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120013486
The additional instructions state: * the promotion was not valid and this order will be revoked if the Soldier concerned is not in a promotable status on the effective date of the promotion * the Soldier must enroll in the appropriate NCOES course within 90 days of the effective date of promotion or release from active duty * failure to enroll, attend, or complete any portion (of the NCOES) within the allowable time frames will result in referral to a reduction board in accordance with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019784
The applicant states: * he was promoted to SFC on 1 January 2004 * he completed Phase I of the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC) on 6 June 2004, but he could not attend Phase II of ANCOC at that time due to certain medical conditions * he took a voluntary reduction in grade effective 9 August 2004 and was transferred to his detachment * he feels he would have retired at the highest grade held except for medical reasons beyond his control 3. On 31 August 2006, the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020253
There is no evidence of record and he did not provide any evidence that shows he was placed on a permanent recommended list for promotion to E-7 or that he was promoted to E-7 prior to his retirement on 31 January 1977. To standardize promotion qualification and to ensure promotion of the best qualified Soldiers, recommendation by a promotion selection board and placement on a permanent recommended promotion list is required for all promotions to SFC, MSG, and SGM. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100001044
There is no available evidence to show he was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 prior to his 21 February 1960 or 10 April 1963 discharges from the USAR. Although the rank of SFC as pay grade E-7 was introduced into the Army grade structure on 1 June 1958, there is no evidence of record and the applicant provided no evidence to confirm he was promoted to pay grade E-7 prior to his 1960 and 1963 discharges from the USAR. He was promoted to SSG/E-6 on 5 May 1979 and he was subsequently...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029037
He retired by reason of permanent disability on 8 September 1987 and he was placed on the Retired List in the rank of SSG/E-6 on 9 September 1987. Evidence of record shows he was promoted to SFC/E-7 in 1979 and he was reduced in rank to SSG/E-6 as a result of a summary court-martial sentence in 1983. There is insufficient evidence that would warrant overturning that guidance in the applicant's case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000537
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 September 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080000537 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant, the daughter of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests that her father's records be corrected to show, in effect, that he retired in the rank of sergeant first class (SFC), pay grade E-7. The FSM's record shows he entered into the USAR on 5 February 1957 and was discharged on 24 July 1963, in the rank of staff sergeant (SSG)/pay grade E-6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021885
The applicant requests his grade as shown on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with a separation date of 21 September 2004, his orders to the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL), and his permanent retirement orders be changed to sergeant first class (SFC)/pay grade E-7 instead of staff sergeant (SSG)/pay grade E-6. U.S. Army Physical Evaluation Board Orders D286-34, dated 13 October 2009, removed the applicant from the TDRL on 21 September 2009 and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016000
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1372, states any member of the Armed Forces who is retired for physical disability or whose name is placed on the TDRL, is entitled to the grade equivalent to the highest of the following: a. the grade in which he/she is serving on the date when his/her name was placed on the TDRL or on the date when retired; b. the highest temporary grade in which he/she served satisfactorily; c. the permanent regular grade to which he/she would have been promoted had it not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019947
The advisory official stated that after a thorough review of the applicant's records, his office recommends his reinstatement to the rank of SFC with the understanding that he will not be eligible for promotion to master sergeant (MSG) until he completes all required NCO education courses. Neither promotion order indicates his promotion was conditional upon completion of NCOES. a. Paragraph 1-27 (NCOES Requirement for Promotion and Conditions Promotion) states that a Soldier must be a WLC...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018516
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to show he was placed on the retired list in the rank/grade of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7, the highest grade he satisfactorily held, instead of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6. By law, a person granted retired pay will receive such pay in the highest grade satisfactorily held by him or her during his or her entire period of service. The applicant's record should be corrected to show his request for retired pay as an SFC was approved.