IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 5 February 2015
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140008924
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 her record to show she was placed on the Army of the United States (AUS) Retired List in pay grade E-7.
2. She states incomplete records were transferred to her retirement files.
3. She provides documents identified in a list of attachments.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant was born on 24 April 1954.
2. Review of the applicant's records shows that, prior to enlisting in the Arkansas Army National Guard (ARARNG), she had served in the Regular U.S. Air Force (USAF) and the USAF Reserve (AFRES).
3. She provides:
a. Special Order P-47, dated 1 September 1988, issued by Headquarters, 917th Combat Support Squadron (AFRES), showing she was promoted to master sergeant (MSgt)/pay grade E-7 effective 1 September 1988.
b. An Air Force Form 1288 (Application for Ready Reserve Assignment) showing that, on 27 June 1991, she applied for assignment as a technical sergeant (TSgt)/pay grade E-6 in a position at Tinker Air Force Base. Comments on the form show she understood she would be demoted to TSgt.
c. Reserve Order P-87, dated 30 July 1991, issued by Headquarters, 917th Combat Support Squadron (AFRES), showing she was demoted from MSgt to TSgt effective the date of the order.
d. A DD Form 368 (Request for Discharge or Clearance from Reserve Component), dated 3 September 1992, showing she requested clearance to enlist in the ARARNG. Her request was approved.
4. On 3 September 1992, she enlisted in the ARARNG as a sergeant (SGT)/pay grade E-5.
5. On 15 August 1996, she was notified that she had completed the required years of service to be eligible for retired pay upon application at age 60.
6. Effective 25 December 1996, she was discharged from the ARARNG and assigned to the Retired Reserve.
7. On 2 May 2014, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command issued Orders C05-493742 placing her on the AUS Retired list effective 24 April 2014, the date she reached age 60. The orders show her retired grade is SGT/E-5.
8. 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 during his or her entire period of service. If the Soldier was transferred to the Retired Reserve or discharged on or after 25 February 1975, retired grade will be the highest 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. Service in the highest grade will not be deemed satisfactory if it is determined that any of the following factors exist: (a) 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 (b) 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 evidence of record shows the applicant was promoted to pay grade E-7 in the AFRES effective 1 September 1988 and served in that rank/grade for more than 2 years. Her reduction to pay grade E-6 was the result of her approved request for assignment in a lower grade. There is no evidence indicating her service in pay grade E-7 was unsatisfactory.
2. In connection with a non-regular retirement, enlisted members are entitled to receive retired pay in the highest grade held satisfactorily for at least 185 days or 6 calendar months while on active duty or in an active reserve status.
3. In view of the foregoing, her record should be corrected to show she was placed on the retired list in rank/pay grade sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 and authorized to receive non-regular retired pay based on that pay grade effective 24 April 2014, the date she reached age 60 and became eligible to receive retired pay. Further, it would be appropriate to pay her any back retired pay due as a result of this correction.
BOARD VOTE:
____X____ ___X_____ ___X_____ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:
a. showing her retired grade was established as SFC/E-7 and she was authorized to receive retired pay in that grade as of 24 April 2014; and
b. paying her any back retired pay due as a result of this correction.
____________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) AR20140008924
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140008924
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04857
A highest grade held determination was not completed and the applicants Reserve retired pay was established in the grade of TSgt. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04039
________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PP recommends approval of the applicant's request to have her retired grade adjusted to MSgt rather than TSgt. There was no evidence of misconduct in the 3 years, 8 months the applicant held the higher grade of MSgt, and her demotion to the grade of TSgt was voluntary based on her reassignment to a lower graded position. The complete SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02570
After considering the applicant's appeal and the Staff Judge Advocate's (SJA) legal review, the demotion authority approved the demotion action from MSgt to TSgt effective 20 Nov 13. The applicant's fitness records were not present in the Air Force Fitness Management System and were not provided by the applicant as evidence. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant notes that her case is based on failure to remain fit in a 24...
Since the applicant had served on active duty in the higher grade of MSgt from 1 June 1993 through 14 December 1997, an advancement grade determination was required and accomplished at the time of applicant’s request for retirement. A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, also evaluated the case and indicates the demotion action taken against the applicant was procedurally correct and there is no evidence there were...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005285
An AGUZ Form 658 (Determination of Grade for Retirement, Advancement, Separation or Retirement Pay), dated 14 May 1974, shows the FSM was promoted to MSGT (E-7) on 24 January 1953 and reduced to SFC (E-6) on 16 December 1957 (per orders). Records show the FSM held the grade of E-6 when he was retired from active duty on 31 May 1964 and he was placed on the Retired List in that grade. Records show the FSM was advanced on the Retired List to the grade of SFC (E-7), effective 16 May 1974,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007930C070208
Carol A. Kornhoff | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant states he was promoted in the US Air Force Reserve (USAFR) to the rank of Master Sergeant (MSGT/E-7) on 1 May 1992 and held that rank until he was honorably separated on 23 February 1998. The applicant's retired grade is currently E-5, but should be E-7.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03407
The other is Section 8964, which is a separate section dealing with circumstances not applicable to his situation. In this respect, we note that Section 8963, Title 10 USC, allows members to retire in the highest grade in which they served on active duty satisfactorily as determined by the Secretary of the Air Force. Further, SAFPC determined the applicant served satisfactorily on active duty in the grade of MSgt and should be retired in that grade.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013463
The applicant states that in spite of requesting to retire due to completing a sufficient period of service for retirement, she was medically retired from the military with over 20 years of active federal service and was ineligible to reenlist due to having an RE Code of 4R. A Physical Disability Information Report, dated 10 June 2014, and U.S. Army Installation Management Command, Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Sill, OK, Orders 162-1314, dated 11 June 2014 (as amended by Orders...
They state the provisions for advancement of enlisted members are quite specific and the only date he may be legally advanced at is the date on which he will have completed 30 years active service plus service on the retired list. They state that this law stated in part that a retiree may not receive less retirement pay than he would have received had he retired at any earlier time with least 20 years of service. After reviewing the evidence of record, we believe that the applicant should...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02310
On 6 Jan 10, he was driving when he dropped his cell phone. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 Sep 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and...