IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 19 March 2015
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140010952
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, advancement on the retired list to the highest rank he satisfactorily held, which was the rank/grade of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 instead of sergeant (SGT)/E-5.
2. He states he held the rank/pay grade of SSG/E-6 for 6 years and 6 months, which was his highest grade. He was demoted to SGT/E-5 approximately
9 months prior to his retirement date and he is receiving SGT/E-5 retirement pay.
3. He provides:
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* Amendment Orders 297-0159, dated 24 October 2013
* Retirement Orders 253-0131, dated 10 September 2013
* Seven DD Forms 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document), dated 18 February 1993, 20 June 1996, 30 December 1997, 10 February 1999, 1 May 2001, 23 May 2004, and 24 April 2008
* Report of Medical Examination, dated 18 February 1993
* Standard Form 180 (Request Pertaining to Military Records), dated 24 April 2014
* Fax Header Sheet, dated 4 March 2014, addressed to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service with attached documents including two letters, Enlisted Record Brief, Summary of Retirement Pay Account, promotion orders from private first class/E-3 through SSG, and a DD Form 214
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 September 1993 and he continued to serve on active duty through a series of reenlistments.
2. He provided Orders 201-00275, dated 19 July 2000, published by Headquarters, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized) and Fort Riley, KS, which show he was promoted from corporal/E-4 to SGT with an effective date and date of rank of 19 July 2000.
3. He also provided Orders 283-302, dated 10 October 2006, published by Detachment C, 38th Personnel Services Battalion, which show he was promoted from SGT to SSG with an effective date and date of rank of 1 October 2006.
4. On 27 April 2013, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for signing a false official statement, forgery, and aiding and abetting, assisting or encouraging a specialist to unlawfully enter an office with the intent to commit forgery. His punishment consisted of reduction from SSG/E-6 to SGT/E-5 and extra duty for 14 days.
5. He provided Orders 253-0131 published by Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood, TX, on 10 September 2013, which show he was released from active duty effective 31 January 2014. On the following date, he was placed on the retired list in the rank/pay grade of SGT/E-5. He completed 20 years, 4 months, and 7 days of active military service.
6. He provided a summary of his retired pay account, dated 14 February 2014, which shows he is being paid in the rank of SGT.
7. Army Regulation 15-80 (Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) and Grade Determinations) establishes policies, procedures, and responsibilities of the AGDRB. Most grade determinations do not require action by the AGDRB, or the exercise of discretion by other authorities, because they are automatic grade determinations that result from the operation of law and this regulation.
a. A grade determination is an administrative decision to determine appropriate retirement grade, retirement pay, or other separation pay. Although a lower grade determination may affect an individual adversely, it is not punitive.
b. Paragraph 2-5 outlines grade determination considerations. It states that service in a higher grade will normally be considered unsatisfactory if reversion to a lower grade was expressly for prejudice or cause; owing to misconduct; caused by NJP pursuant to Article 15 of the UCMJ; or the result of the sentence of a court-martial. It also states that service will be considered unsatisfactory if there is sufficient unfavorable information to establish that the Soldier's service in the grade in question was unsatisfactory.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant served on active duty from 24 September 1993 to 31 January 2014.
2. The applicant was promoted to SSG on 1 October 2006.
3. The applicant received NJP under Article 15, UCMJ on 27 April 2013. As a result of this NJP, he was reduced to SGT/E-5 effective 27 April 2013.
4. Orders were published that show the applicant retired from active duty on 31 January 2014 and he was placed on the retired list in the rank of SGT/E-5 on 1 February 2014. At the time of his retirement, he had completed 20 years, 4 months, and 7 days of active service.
5. Army Regulation 15-80 provides that service in a higher grade will normally be considered unsatisfactory if reversion to the lower grade is the result of NJP pursuant to Article 15, UCMJ. Accordingly, his service in the rank of SSG/E-6 should be determined to have been unsatisfactory.
6. In view of the foregoing, there is no 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 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) AR20140010952
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140010952
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000528
The applicant states: * he does not believe the Board had all the evidence to make a proper determination of his case * he performed in the rank of SSG successfully; he challenges anyone to read his records and disagree * he performed the duties on three different occasions as a sergeant first class (SFC) and he was rated top block and among the best * he was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal in that rank and he served 14 years in that rank * he does not believe one incident means his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006454
On 7 August 2008, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicants request for advancement on the Retired List. The applicants claim that he should be advanced on the Retired List to his highest grade held of SSG/E-6 because of his excellent service subsequent to the incident that resulted in his reduction to the lower grade which includes him being awarded the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, and the 5th award of the Good Conduct Medal for...
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 | CY2001 | 2001058739C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his military records be corrected to show he was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) in the rank and pay grade of staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6) and that he be provided all back pay and allowances due as a result. In this case, the evidence of record confirms the applicant was twice reduced from the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 for cause and that his service as a SSG/E-6 was undistinguished. Therefore, the Board finds that his service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010136
He went above and beyond, not only for the Army or himself, but for the Army's future NCOs, his Soldiers. An Enlisted Record Brief, dated 13 November 2012, that shows the applicant's rank/grade was reduced from SGT/E-5 to specialist (SPC)/E-4 on 15 February 2012. The applicant provides a self-authored statement to the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB), dated 26 March 2014, in which he states: a.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075532C070403
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012737
On 31 March 1979, he was honorably retired from the Army, by reason of sufficient service for retirement, at the conclusion of 20 years and 5 days of active service. The applicant contends his record should be corrected to show he was retired in the rank/grade of SFC/E-7. Army Regulation 15-80 provides that service in a higher grade will normally be considered unsatisfactory if reversion to a lower grade results from the sentence of a court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018426
On 1 March 2004, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) considered his request for advancement on the Retired List to E-8, as the highest grade he satisfactorily held. The evidence or record shows he was convicted by a special court-martial for wrongful marijuana usage. Army Regulation 15-80 provides that service in a higher grade will normally be considered unsatisfactory if reversion to a lower grade results from misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000855C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, a correction of his retired rank and pay grade to sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7). The evidence of record confirms the applicant held the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5 on the date he was REFRAD for the purpose of disability retirement and that he was placed on the Retired List in that rank and pay grade. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014000
The applicant requests, in effect, to be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) in the highest grade he satisfactorily held for the purpose of computation of disability retirement. The applicant states the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) found the highest grade in which he satisfactorily served, for the purpose of computation of disability retirement/separation pay, was staff sergeant (SSG)/ E-6. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the...