IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 21 September 2010
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100007609
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, that his records be corrected to show he was placed on the Retired List as a sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7.
2. The applicant states he was an SFC on 1 May 2003 and wasn't reduced to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 on 11 November 2007 as there are no reduction orders.
He retired from active duty on 30 September 2009 and needs to know if he should have been retired in pay grade E-6 or E-7.
3. The applicant provides promotion orders and an Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 19 July 2005, in support of this application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 September 1986.
2. The ERB provided by him shows he was promoted to SSG/E-6 on 1 November 1996 and to SFC/E-7 on 1 May 2003.
3. His official military personnel file (OMPF) contains a DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) covering the period 30 July 2007 through 20 December 2007 that reveals he tested positive on a urinalysis during the rated period. This NCOER lists his rank as SSG with a date of rank of 24 November 2007. His OMPF also contains an ERB, dated 11 June 2009, that shows his date of rank to SSG as 24 November 2007. No reduction orders were found in his OMPF.
4. By orders, dated 29 June 2009, he was released from active duty by reason of length of service for retirement and placed on the Retired List effective 1 October 2009. The orders show he was placed on the Retired List in the rank of SSG.
5. A review of his Defense Finance and Accounting Service military pay record shows he was listed as an SFC from 1 May 2003 through 23 November 2007 and as an SSG from 24 November 2007 through the date of his retirement.
6. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 3961(b), states that, unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other provision of law, a Regular or Reserve of the Army not covered by section 3961(a) (which discusses commissioned officers) who retires other than for physical disability retires in the regular or reserve grade that he holds on the date of his retirement.
7. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. It provides that retired Soldiers, when their active service plus service on the Retired List total 30 years, are entitled to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade in which they satisfactorily served on active duty. When these Soldiers complete 30 years of service, their military personnel records are reviewed to determine whether service in the higher grade was satisfactory.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's request to be placed on the Retired List as an SFC/E-7 has been carefully reviewed.
2. The applicant held the rank of SFC from 1 May 2003 through 23 November 2007. However, the available records show he was reduced to the rank of SSG effective 24 November 2007 and served in that rank until his retirement. While no reduction orders were found in his OMPF, his OMPF does contain an NCOER that shows he tested positive on a urinalysis during the rated period. Therefore, it is presumed that his reduction in rank was a result of the positive urinalysis.
3. By statute, an enlisted Soldier who retires for length of service retires in the grade that he holds on the date of his retirement. The applicant held the rank and grade of SSG/E-6 on the date of his retirement and he has not shown that his reduction in rank and grade was in error or unjust. Therefore, he was correctly placed on the Retired List in the rank/grade of SSG/E-6.
4. In view of the above, his request should be denied.
5. The applicant is advised that his military personnel records will be reviewed when his active service plus service on the Retired List total 30 years to determine whether his service in the higher grade was satisfactory and warrants advancement on the Retired List.
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) AR20100007609
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR2010000ARMY | 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 | CY2013 | 20130019749
b. Paragraph 2-4 states a grade determination is an administrative decision to determine appropriate retirement grade, retirement pay, or other separation pay. The evidence of record shows he was reduced to SSG/E-6 effective 14 December 2010 and held that rank/grade when he retired. Further, the evidence of record does not show the reason for his reduction to SSG, though it does show a precipitous decline in his performance as an SFC in the 2 years prior to his reduction.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022364
Two Soldiers were promoted from this list. e. The applicant was removed from the 2008 92Y AGR promotion list by his battalion commander. In 2009/2010, the applicant was removed from the promotion list by the command.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015388
The applicant states: * she was processed under the integrated disability system (IDES) and she was permanently retired in the rank/grade of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 * the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) considered her case and denied her request to be retired in the rank/grade of MSG/E-8 * she was promoted to MSG/E-8 in 2001 and served satisfactorily in that rank/grade; she was also laterally appointed to first sergeant (1SG) * she was the first female 1SG assigned to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016946
The applicant provides the following documents as new evidence: self authored statement; Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Record of Proceedings AR20060008821; electronic mail (e-mail) Messages; DD Form 3349 (Physical Profile); Adjutant Generals Department, Austin, Texas, Orders Number 283-1060, dated 10 October 2002; Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood Orders Number 239-0332, dated 27 August 2002, and Orders Number 136-4, dated 16 May 2002; DA Form 2-1 (Personnel...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016684
The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for correction of his military records as follows: * constructive service credit for active duty from 6 November 1997 (date erroneously discharged) to 29 July 2007 (date properly discharged) * consideration for promotion to sergeant major (SGM)/E-9 2. The Board recommended denial of the application that pertains to promoting him to the rank/grade of SGM/E-9; however, the Board recommended all state Army National Guard records and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008630
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests removal/deletion of an Article 15 from the restricted folder of his official military personnel file (OMPF). Table 2-1 (Composition of the OMPF) of Army Regulation 600-8-104 shows that the DA Form 2627 is filed in either the performance or restricted section of the OMPF, as directed in Item 5 of the DA Form 2627.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021868
The applicant was promoted to SSG in the USAR on 1 October 2005. In April 2009, the official enlisted promotion list was activated and the MTARNG held a promotion board. The applicant was neither eligible for nor recommended for promotion to SFC/E-7.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021868
The applicant was promoted to SSG in the USAR on 1 October 2005. In April 2009, the official enlisted promotion list was activated and the MTARNG held a promotion board. The applicant was neither eligible for nor recommended for promotion to SFC/E-7.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016712
The applicant contends, in effect, that all traces of his court-martial should be removed from his OMPF or, if this is not possible, the court-martial documents should be transferred to the restricted portion of his OMPF because his NCOERs since that time show his professionalism and dedication to duty, but he has twice failed to be selected for promotion to SFC (E-7). The evidence of record shows that the court-martial order, dated 16 October 2003, is properly filed in the performance...