IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    5 November 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140004451 


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, placement on the retired list in the rank/grade of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6.

2.  The applicant states:

   a.  He strongly feels he was wrongly and willfully subjected, through immense pressure from his former command, to go against his very own good judgment.  As a result, he was reduced to sergeant (SGT)/E-5 in “November 2010” (i.e., August 2011).  He requests his retired grade be changed to pay grade E-6, the grade he performed at with all of his efforts for 2 years and 9 months.

   b.  Since his first day of reenlisting after 9/11 and after a 13-year break in service, he felt his experience would be a valuable asset to the U.S. Army.  He dedicated himself and his family to the defense of this great nation, but his drive and passion slowed down.  After his first deployment to Iraq he somehow found that he was no longer himself and as time went by it was still building inside him. He grew weary and absent minded after the second deployment, but he was still able to maintain somewhat.  The third deployment brought out everything that he was holding back and if affected his ability to make sound decisions.

   c.  Bad decisions finally caught up with him and resulted in his reduction in August 2011.  It was painful and it sent him into a deeper depression with anxiety and aggressive behavior.  He has done everything he could to reach the goal of becoming a senior leader that both subordinates and senior leaders would be proud to have on their team, only to be shot down by those senior leaders who only wanted to progress themselves.  There is a great number of those who dishonor those who have served and those who will serve.  He sincerely hopes for a better future for Servicemembers and he will continue to be proud of his service, but with a little disappointment.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having had prior service, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) in pay grade E-3 on 6 January 2005.  He was awarded military occupational specialty 88M (Motor Transport Operator).  He reenlisted in the RA on 8 January 2006.  He served in Kuwait/Iraq from:

* 7 January 2006 to 4 December 2006
* 17 June 2009 to 11 June 2010

2.  He was promoted to pay grade E-6 on 1 November 2008.

3.  A review of his military records located in the integrated Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) failed to reveal the facts and circumstances, such as an Article 15, court-martial orders, reduction order, etc., of his reduction from pay grade E-6 to E-5; however, his records contain the following:

   a.  A "Relief for Cause" DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for his duties as a squad leader.  The report was for a 6-month period from 4 June 2011 through 30 November 2011.  The NCOER shows his rank as "SSG" and his date of rank (DOR) as 1 November 2008.  It also shows in:

		(1)  Part IVa – the rater placed an "X" in each "Yes" block except for "Duty and Integrity" and entered the bullets:

* disgraced his commitment to the NCO Corps
* integrity was compromised and questioned
* effectively executed all missions and goals assigned regardless of difficulty

		(2)  Part  IVb (Competence), c (Physical Fitness & Military Bearing), d (Leadership), and e (Training) the rater placed an "X" in the "Success" blocks and in f (Responsibility & Accountability) the rater placed an "X" in the "Needs Improvement" block.
		(3)  Part Vc and Part Vd – the senior rater gave a rating of "Marginal" and placed an "X" in the "4" (Fair) blocks for the applicant's overall performance and overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility and entered the bullets:

* do not promote at this time
* do not send to Senior Leaders Course at this time
* lacks potential needed to perform at this current position

   b.  A "Change of Rater" NCOER for his duties as heavy wheeled vehicle operator.  The report was for a 6-month period from 30 November 2012 through 23 May 2013.  The NCOER shows his rank as "SGT" and his DOR as 3 August 2011.  It also shows in:

		(1)  Part IVa – the rater placed an "X" in each "Yes" block and entered the bullets:

* always placed mission first
* possessed standards of integrity
* dedicated to his duties and the Army

		(2)  Part  IVb (Competence), c (Physical Fitness & Military Bearing), d (Leadership), e (Training), and f (Responsibility & Accountability) the rater placed an "X" in the "Success" blocks.

		(3)  Part Vc and Part Vd – the senior rater gave a rating of "Fully Capable" and placed an "X" in the "3" (Successful) blocks for the applicant's overall performance and overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility and entered the bullets:

* do not promote due to current behavioral health; cannot handle the responsibility
* rated Solider not available to sign

4.  On 14 February 2013, he was approved for extension on active duty for completion of a Medical Evaluation Board.

5.  He was honorably retired on 23 May 2013, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), chapter 4, by reason of temporary (enhanced) disability.  His DD Form 214 lists in:

* Item 4a (Grade, Rate, or Rank) – SGT
* Item 4b (Pay Grade) – E-5
* Item 12i (Effective Date of Pay Grade) – 23 August 2011

6.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 3961 provides that each retired member of the Army, unless entitled to a higher grade under some other provision of law, retires in the regular grade that he/she holds on the date of his/her retirement.

7.  Army Regulation 15-80 establishes policies, procedures, and responsibilities of the AGDRB.  This regulation provides guidance on what service will not be considered satisfactory for grade determination purposes.  It states, in pertinent part, that generally service in a grade will not be considered to have been satisfactory when reversion to a lower grade was expressly for prejudice or cause, due to misconduct, caused by nonjudicial punishment (NJP), or the result of the sentence of a court-martial. 

8.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 3964, provides the legal authority for the advancement on the Retired List to a higher grade after 30 years of service for warrant officers and enlisted members.  It states, in pertinent part, that each retired enlisted member of the Army who is retired with less than 30 years of active service is entitled, when his active service plus his service on the retired list totals 30 years, to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade in which he/she served on active duty satisfactorily, as determined by the Secretary of the Army.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's record is void of the complete facts, circumstances, and records surrounding his reduction from pay grade E-6 to E-5.  It appears he was reduced for cause based on the NCOER for the period from 4 June 2011 through 30 November 2011.  In this report and the subsequent report, his rater stated he disgraced his commitment to the NCO Corps and his integrity was compromised and questioned.  His senior rater stated he should not be promoted.

2.  The applicant held the rank/grade of SGT/E-5 on the date of his retirement.  He was properly placed on the Retired List in that same grade/rank.  There is no evidence of record and he provided none to show he satisfactorily held the grade of E-6 after his reduction and prior to his date of retirement and placement on the Retired List.

3.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief and there is no error in the applicant's records.  


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)                                         AR20140004451





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140004451



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1