IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  5 July 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100030500


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, his retirement DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected:

* in Item 12a (Date Entered AD [Active Duty] This Period)
* his rank be corrected in Items 4a (Grade, Rate, or Rank) and 4b (Pay Grade)

He also requests he be advanced on the retired list to his highest grade satisfactorily held.

2.  The applicant states his DD Form 214 shows:

* 780313 [13 March 1978] in Item 12a, but it should show 710928 [28 September 1971]
* sergeant (SGT) in Item 4a, but it should show staff sergeant (SSG)
* E-5 in Item 4b, but it should show E-6

3.  The applicant, in a lengthy, handwritten statement, alleges harassment and mistreatment after he transferred from Germany to Fort Campbell, KY.  He adds he is a dialysis patient at a Veterans Affairs hospital and wants his rank back for himself and his family.



4.  The applicant provides:

* two copies of his DD Form 214
* a copy of his promotion certificate to SSG
* DA Form 3686-1 (Leave and Earnings Statement)
* Cold War Certificate
* a 9-page handwritten statement

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is a retired Regular Army (RA) SGT.  On 28 September 1971, he enlisted and served through continuous reenlistments until he was retired for length of service on 29 February 1992 with 20 years and 25 days of creditable service.

2.  The applicant's records contain four DD Forms 214 covering his 20-plus years of service:

* 19710928 – 19721017
* 19721018 – 19770202
* 19770203 – 19780312
* 19780313 – 19920229

3.  The applicant's record of promotions shows:

* 19710928 – private (E-1)
* 19720128 – private (E-2)
* 19730412 – private first class (E-3)
* 19730710 – specialist four (E-4)
* 19740823 – private first class (E-3)
* 19750915 – specialist four (E-4)
* 19790913 – corporal (E-4), with date of rank 19750915
* 19801210 – sergeant (E-5)
* 19811207 – staff sergeant (E-6)
* 19880112 – sergeant (E-5)

4.  The applicant was reduced from E-4 to E-3 because he was convicted by a special court-martial for absence without leave from 12-18 January 1974 and from 23 January-6 June 1974.



5.  The applicant was reduced from E-6 to E-5 by an administrative reduction board based on:

* failing the Basic Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Course (BNCOC)
* 3 substandard NCO evaluation reports (NCOER), April 1982 - April 1984
* overweight program, August 1984 - April 1985 and March 1987 - April 1987
* Article 15 for assaulting an NCO, June 1986
* Article 15 for dereliction of duty, September 1987
* numerous negative counseling statements

6.  The Calendar Year (CY) 1988 Master Sergeant/Sergeant Qualitative Management Program (QMP) Selection Board, on 14 October 1988, barred the applicant from reenlistment.  He appealed and, on 7 April 1989, his appeal was denied.

7.  The applicant was honorably retired on 29 February 1992 for length of service with 20 years and 25 days of active federal service.

8.  On 9 November 2007, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) convened to determine whether the applicant should be advanced in grade on the retired list.  It found:

After a thorough review of [the applicant's] Official Military Personnel File, advancement on the retired list to the grade of E-6 is denied because while he was in the grade of E-6, he failed BNCOC (Mar 82), received three substandard NCOERs (Apr 82 to Jul 82, Aug 82 to
Apr 83 and May 83 to Apr 84), was twice on the overweight program (Aug 84 to Apr 85 and Mar 87 to Apr 87), received two Article 15s (assaulted a SGT in Jun 86 and dereliction of duty in Sep 87), and received numerous negative counseling statements; all of which resulted in his being reduced to the grade of E-5 by an administrative reduction board.

The applicant was informed of this decision by letter dated 1 February 2007 [sic – should be 1 February 2008].

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation 


of Soldiers for a variety of reasons.  Chapter 19 contains policies and procedures for voluntary and involuntary separation, for the convenience of the Government, of RA NCOs under the QMP.  It provides:

   a.  Soldiers who choose not to appeal QMP selection for denial of continued service, or whose appeal is denied, will be involuntarily discharged not later than 90 days after the Soldier receives pre-separation counseling as required by law.

   b.  Soldiers with a minimum of 17 years, 9 months of active Federal service at the time of notification of QMP selection, who choose not to appeal, will be retained to 20-year retirement eligibility upon request.

   c.  Soldiers who appeal will also be retained to retirement eligibility upon request if the appeal is denied.  Soldiers in this category must apply for retirement to be effective no later than the first day of the month following the month in which they complete 20 years of active Federal service.

10.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army.  It establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  The version in effect in 1978 provided a DD Form 214 would be issued every time a Soldier was discharged.  The current version provides:

* Items 4a and 4b, enter the active duty grade or rank and pay grade at time of separation
* Item 12a, enter the beginning date of the continuous period of AD for issuance of this DD Form 214, for which a DD Form 214 was not previously issued

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests two corrections to his retirement DD Form 214:

* change Item 12a to "71  09  28" [28 September 1971]
* change Item 4a&b to "SSG  E-6" – in effect restore him to his highest grade satisfactorily held

2.  Item 12a of the applicant's DD Form 214 is correct.  The applicant has a "previously issued" DD Form 214 showing 28 September 1971 as his date he entered on AD.

3.  The applicant was considered for advancement on the retired list to the grade of E-6 by the AGDRB.  That board, after reviewing the applicant's service in grade E-6, found it unsatisfactory and denied advancement.  There is insufficient evidence to overrule the decision of that board.

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)                                         AR20100030500





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100030500



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1