IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  9 August 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110001943 


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 correction of his records to show he was placed on the Retired List in the rank of staff sergeant (SSG)/pay grade E-6 and payment of all retired pay based on pay grade E-6.

2.  The applicant states he served in the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and Utah Army National Guard (UTARNG) and was promoted to SSG.

	a.  After he redeployed to the United States from Operation Desert Storm, he told his noncommissioned officer in charge that he could not attend unit drills until he made enough money to pay $700.00 in monthly child support for his four children.  This required him to work 6 or 7 days a week at his civilian job.

	b.  After 17 years of proud service, he was unjustly reduced in rank.

	c.  He enlisted in another unit and completed sufficient service to retire.

	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).

3.  The applicant provides one page of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record).



CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the ARNGUS and UTARNG on 7 November 1969.  Records show his date of birth is 25 December 1950.

2.  The applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), item 33 (Appointments and Reductions), shows he was promoted to SSG with a date of rank (DOR) of 17 November 1975 per Headquarters, 1457th Engineer Battalion (Combat), American Fork, Utah, Unit Order 40, dated 1975.

3.  Headquarters, 1457th Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Corps), American Fork, Utah, Orders 013-003, dated 10 April 1992, reduced the applicant in grade from SSG/E-6 to sergeant (SGT)/pay grade E-5 based on inefficiency.  The action was effective 10 April 1992 and his DOR for SGT/E-5 was established as 26 January 1985.

4.  The applicant's DA Form 2-1, item 18 (Appointments and Reductions), shows he was reduced to SGT/E-5 with a DOR of 26 January 1985 effective 10 April 1992.

5.  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), paragraph 8-27g, as an unsatisfactory participant with service categorized as general under honorable conditions

	a.  He completed 7 years, 2 months, and 5 days of net service; 9 years and 8 months of prior reserve service; 4 months of prior active service; and 17 years, 2 months, and 5 days of total service for pay.

	b.  He was discharged in the rank of SGT/E-5 with a DOR of 26 January 1985.

6.  On or about 25 May 1995 the applicant requested a waiver for enlistment in the UTARNG.  He stated, "My decision has come forth to the fact that I have 
17-plus years in the National Guard and would like to attain a retirement from the Guard…A combination of misunderstanding and personal conflict and lack of interest in the Guard caused me to go into the Individual Ready Reserve.  I have worked these problems out and feel I am ready to complete my obligation to my country by means of the National Guard."

7.  An NGB Form 22-3 (Request for Waiver), dated 25 May 1994, shows:

	a.  Item 7 (Recommendation) states the applicant "was discharged 30 March 1992 as an unsatisfactory participant due to non-drill attendance.  [The applicant] left Utah in 1992 for out-of-state employment.  He recalls letting his section chief know he was going out of town for 2 months.  Upon his return to Utah he reported back to his unit…only to learn he had been reduced to E-5 and discharged."

	b.  Item 9c (Promotion and Reduction During Last Period of Service) shows the applicant was reduced from E-6 to E-5 on 10 April 1992.

	c.  The waiver for the applicant's enlistment was approved on 25 May 1994.

8.  The applicant enlisted in the ARNGUS and UTARNG in pay grade E-5 on 31 May 1994.

9.  An NGB Form 22 shows the applicant was honorably discharged from the ARNGUS and UTARNG on 30 May 1997 under the provisions of NGR 600-200, paragraph 8-27v, and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Retired).

	a.  He completed 3 years of net service; 18 years, 6 months, and 11 days of prior Reserve service; 8 months and 24 days of prior Active service; and 22 years, 3 months, and 5 days of total service for pay.

	b.  He was discharged in the rank of SGT/E-5 with a DOR of 26 January 1985.

10.  An ARNG Retirement Points History Statement prepared on 12 February 1998 shows the applicant had 20 years of creditable service for retired pay and the highest grade he held was E-5.

11.  Headquarters, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), St. Louis, Missouri, Orders P11-929719, dated 10 November 2010, placed the applicant on the Retired List on 25 December 2010 in the retired grade of SGT/E-5.

12.  A review of the applicant's military personnel records revealed no evidence that he was promoted to SSG/E-6 at any time subsequent to 10 April 1992 when he was reduced to SGT/E-5.

13.  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 component Soldiers.  Chapter 2 (Criteria), paragraph 2-11 (Computation of retired pay), provides that the HRC Retired Activities Directorate 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 on or after 25 February 1975, the 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 6 calendar months.

	b.  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 HRC 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; 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his records should be corrected to show he was placed on the Retired List in the rank of SSG/E-6 and requests payment of all retired pay based on pay grade E-6 because he held the rank/grade of SSG/E-6 sufficient time for him to retire in that grade.

2.  The applicant was promoted in the ARNGUS and UTARNG to the rank of SSG/E-6 on 17 November 1975.

3.  Records show the applicant was reduced from SSG/E-6 to SGT/E-5 due to inefficiency and was separated from the ARNGUS and UTARNG as an unsatisfactory participant.  Thus, it is clear he did not satisfactorily hold the rank/grade of SSG/E-6.

4.  Records confirm the applicant held the rank/grade of SGT/E-5 when he was honorably retired from the ARNGUS and UTARNG on 30 May 1997 and when he was placed on the Retired List on 25 December 2010.

5.  There is no evidence that the applicant was promoted to SSG/E-6 at any time subsequent to when he was reduced from SSG/E-6 to SGT/E-5 for inefficiency.

6.  Upon reaching age 60, HRC retired the applicant and placed him on the Retired List in grade SGT/E-5.  Either the applicant failed to prove he should be placed on the Retired List in the grade of SSG/E-6 or it was determined that the highest grade (i.e., SSG/E-6) was not served satisfactorily by the applicant.  In any case, the evidence of record supports such a conclusion.

7.  Therefore, the evidence of record confirms that the highest grade the applicant satisfactorily held was SGT/E-5.

8.  In addition, the retired grade in which the applicant was placed on the Retired List is correct.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to correction of his records in this case.

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 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)                                         AR20110001943



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110001943



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1