IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 5 April 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110018848
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, reconsideration of his earlier request for restoration of his rank/grade to sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7, the highest rank/grade in which he satisfactorily served in the Army National Guard (ARNG).
2. The applicant states he was reduced to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 for inefficiency on 31 July 1998 after 16 years of time in grade as an SFC. He has waited the required 30 years to apply for correction.
3. The applicant provides:
* Orders 41-1, issued by Headquarters, 29th Infantry Brigade, Hawaii Army National Guard (HIARNG), Honolulu, HI, dated 25 August 1982
* Orders 19-01, issued by the same headquarters, dated 4 August 1998
* his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 30 September 1999
* his letter to the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Support Division-St Louis, subject: The Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB), dated 8 November 2003
* a letter to him from ARBA, Arlington, VA, dated 19 February 2004
* his letter to ARBA, subject: The AGDRB, dated 5 September 2011
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20110004443 on 15 September 2011.
2. The applicant provides new evidence in the form of correspondence between himself and ARBA which warrants consideration by the Board.
3. The applicant enlisted in the HIARNG on 25 May 1970. He successfully completed training and he held military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman). He subsequently served through a series of reenlistments or extensions, performing duties in various positions until his retirement. The highest rank/grade he attained while serving in the HIARNG was SFC/E-7 with a date of rank of August 1982.
4. On 5 May 1998, the applicant received notification that the Qualitative Retention Board had recommended his retention in the ARNG for one additional year. It stated the applicant needed to complete his missing Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reporting System (NCOERS) reports for 1997 and that he needed to take and pass an Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). The notification further stated the applicants last APFT was taken October 1996.
5. A review of his NCOER for the period April 1997 through March 1998 shows he received:
* "Excellent" ratings in Part IVb,d-f (Competence, Leadership, Training, Responsibility and Accountability) from his Rater
* An "Among the Best" rating in Part Va (Overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility) from his Rater
* The highest ratings in Parts Vc (Overall performance) and Vd (Overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility) from his Senior Rater
6. However, Part IVc (Physical Fitness and Military Bearing) of this NCOER shows he received a Needs Improvement (Some) rating from his Rater. The APFT block of this part shows the entry 9712/fail.
7. Orders 19-01, dated 4 August 1998, reduced the applicant from SFC/E-7 to SSG/E-6, effective 11 July 1998 by reason of inefficiency.
8. Orders 067-001, dated 7 April 1999, discharged the applicant from the ARNG in the rank/grade of SSG/E-6 and transferred him to the Retired Reserve.
9. As new evidence, the applicant provides copies of:
a. an 8 November 2003, letter to the ARBA Support Division, St Louis, requesting to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade that he satisfactorily held while on active duty.
b. a 19 February 2004, ARBA letter informing the applicant he should have filed his request to the Commanding Officer, U.S. Total Army Human Resources Command - St Louis, ATTN: ARPC-PSP-T, 1 Reserve Way, St Louis, MO 63132-5100.
c. a 5 September 2011, letter to ARBA, again requesting to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade he satisfactorily held while on active duty.
10. Army Regulation 135-180 (Qualifying Service for Retired Pay Nonregular Service) states, in pertinent part, that a person granted retired pay will receive such pay in the highest grade (temporary or permanent) satisfactorily held by him/her during his/her entire period of service. Service in the highest grade will not be deemed satisfactory if it is determined that any of the following factors exist:
a. reduction 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
b. there is information in the Soldiers service record to indicate clearly that the highest grade was not served satisfactorily.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The evidence shows that in a 19 February 2004 letter from ARBA to the applicant he was informed that the appropriate office to handle his issue was the Commanding Officer, U.S. Army Human Resources Command-St Louis. However, there is no evidence he applied to that office and that his request was denied.
2. Nevertheless, the applicant's reduction to SSG/E-6 was expressly for cause and under the provisions of the governing regulation the applicant's service in pay grade E-7 was not satisfactory.
3. His new evidence was considered; however, it is insufficient to merit granting of the applicant's request.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.
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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20110004443, dated 15 September 2011.
____________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) AR20110010831
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110018848
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004443
The applicant states he was reduced for inefficiency after 16 years time in grade as an SFC/E-7 and has completed the required 30 years combined service on the active duty and retired lists to request correction. The applicant contends after completing the requisite 30 years combined service on the active duty and retired lists, he should have been retired in the rank/grade of SFC/E-7 vice SSG/E-6, the highest rank/grade in which he satisfactorily served in the ARNG. Evidence in the...
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 | CY2004 | 20040008623C070208
The applicant requests in effect, that he be advanced on the retired list to the rank of Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7. Headquarters, 4th Brigade, 80th Division Orders 1-1 dated 17 January 1988 reduced the applicant from SFC to SSG with a date of rank (DOR) of 10 March 1974. Based upon the guidance in Army Regulation 140-158, paragraph 7-5b(1), only three circumstances could have resulted in the applicant being reduced from SFC to SSG but being given a DOR of 10 March 1974 (instead of a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006244
c. He recently received correspondence from the recorder of the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) informing him that it appears he should have been placed on the Retired List in the grade of E-7 and he should apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for review of his case. 10 USC, section 3964 (Higher grade after 30 years of service: warrant officers and enlisted members), provides that each retired member of the Army covered by subsection (b) who is...
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 | CY2011 | 20110024097
It states, in pertinent part, that at the time any member of an armed force who is retired for physical disability is entitled to a grade equivalent to the highest of the following: the grade in which he is serving on the date when his name is placed on the Retired List; the highest grade in which he served satisfactorily; the grade to which he would have been promoted had it not been for the physical disability that resulted in retirement. In accordance with statutory and regulatory...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011905
Counsel argues: * E-9 was the last rank in which the applicant served honorably and he should be restored to it and placed on the Retired List in that grade * the command violated Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) in that no nonjudicial punishment was imposed * the applicant accepted the reduction on advice of his counsel * Army Regulation (AR) 15-80 (Army Grade Determination Review Board and Grade Determination) allows for the restoration of his grade 3. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026207
On 24 December 2002, Headquarters, 78th Division, Edison, NJ, published Orders 02-358-00003 ordering the applicant's honorable discharge from the USAR, effective 30 November 2002, after having achieved maximum authorized years of service as a MSG/E-8 (32 years). The applicant was promoted to CSM on 1 December 1997 but his orders were revoked and he received new orders on 3 March 1998 promoting him to SGM/E-9 contingent upon completion of Sergeant Major's Course with 2 years. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019224
The applicant requests correction of his records to show he retired in the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7. The applicant contends his military records should be corrected to show he retired in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7 because prior to receiving NJP he honorably held the rank of SFC for over 13 years. Therefore, his service in the rank of SFC was unsatisfactory, and his advancement to a rank above SGT on the Retired List would not be appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077230C070215
He was also informed that he would receive a written counseling statement every 90 days for the next year. On 13 November 1998, the applicant extended his period of service for 3 years; thereby establishing 17 November 2001 as his new expiration of term of service (ETS) date. On 27 September 1999, the applicant’s unit commander requested that the applicant be reduced from SSG/E-6 to SGT/E-5 for inefficiency.