ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  4 September 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170006222


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  correct his records in order for his retirement and benefits to 
be paid as Staff Sergeant (SSG)/E-6, his highest grade held

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOER) ending for the period of 
31 May 2007 to 31 October 2014
*	Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) 
Summary
*	DA Form 7652 (Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) Commander’s 
Performance and Functional Statement)
*	Enlisted Record Brief
*	DD Form 2707-1 (Department of Defense Report of Result of Trial)

FACTS:

1.  The applicant states he is requesting to have his retirement and benefits records 
corrected to reflect his highest rank obtained of SSG/E-6 because that is where he 
spent more than half of his military service performing duties.  He was awarded the rank 
of SSG in 2008 which he honorably held for nearly 8 years.  Approximately 7 months 
prior to his medical retirement he was reduced in rank to sergeant (SGT)/E-5.  His 
reduction was simply due to a miscommunication and it was his only infraction in 
14 years of military service.

2.  The applicant provides:

	a.  NCOER for the period of 1 June 2006 to 31 May 2007, which rated the applicant 
as among the best in promotion potential by his rater and successful in performance 
and superior in promotion potential by his senior rater in the grade of SGT/E-5.

	b.  NCOER for the period of 1 June 2007 to 31 May 2008, which rated the applicant 
as among the best in promotion potential by his rater and successful in performance 
and superior in promotion potential by his senior rater in the grade of SSG/E-6.
	c.  NCOER for the period of 1 June 2008 to 31 May 2009, which rated the applicant 
as fully capable in promotion potential by his rater and successful in performance and 
superior in promotion potential by his senior rater in the grade of SSG/E-6.

	d.  NCOER for the period of 1 May 2010 to 31 October 2010, which rated the 
applicant as among the best in promotion potential by his rater and successful in 
performance and superior in promotion potential by his senior rater in the grade of 
SSG/E-6.

	e.  NCOER for the period of 1 November 2011 to 31 October 2012, which rated the 
applicant as among the best in promotion potential by his rater and successful in 
performance and superior in promotion potential by his senior rater in the grade of 
SSG/E-6.

	f.  NCOER for the period of 1 November 2012 to 31 October 2013, which rated the 
applicant as fully capable in promotion potential by his rater and successful in 
performance and superior in promotion potential by his senior rater in the grade of 
SSG/E-6.

	g.  NCOER for the period of 1 November 2013 to 31 October 2014, which rated the 
applicant as among the best in promotion potential by his rater and successful in 
performance and superior in promotion potential by his senior rater in the grade of 
SSG/E-6.

	h.  IDES MEB narrative summary pertaining to the applicant, which stated that he 
failed retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 40-501 (Standards 
of Medical Fitness), chapter 3-33 (Anxiety, Somatoform, or Dissociative Disorders) b 
and c for post-traumatic stress disorder but met retention standards for major 
depressive disorder, scars, obstructive sleep apnea, open wound on left wrist, left 
shoulder tear, planus on right and left foot, cervical strain, lumbosacral strain, erectile 
dysfunction, migraine/tension headaches, traumatic brain injury, post traumatic vertigo, 
sensorineural hearing loss, tinnitus, and right and left hip osteoarthritis.  Summary was 
completed in March 2016.

	i.  DA Form 7652 dated 7 March 2016, completed by the applicant’s commander that 
stated he had not been performing duties as assigned squad leader at the warrior 
transition battalion for the past nine months.  He was attached to the Tripler Army 
Hospital in operations performing administrative duties.  He was able to complete tasks 
when appointments or treatment programs did not interfere.  The applicant’s command 
had not observed him performing the duties as warrior transition cadre.  His medical 
conditions had resulted in a permanent profile which prevented him from performing 
duties as an indirect fire infantryman.

	j.  DD form 2707-1 for Special Court-Martial trial held on 26 February 2016, the 
applicant was found guilty of one specification of dereliction of duty that he willfully failed 
to follow instructions for the escort of a prisoner and one specification of intent to 
deceive.  The sentence was adjudged on 26 February 2016 and his punishment 
included reduction to the grade of SGT/E-5.
 
3.  A review of the applicant’s service record shows:

	a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 September 2002.

	b.  DA Form 1695 (Oath of Extension of Enlistment), the applicant extended his 
enlistment on 1 February 2012 for 5 months to obtain a new expiration term of service 
of 3 March 2016.

	c.  He reenlisted on 21 January 2015 for an indefinite period of enlistment.

	d.  Special Court-Martial Order Number 16 dated 14 July 2016, convicted the 
applicant of one specification of dereliction in the performance of his duties when he 
willfully failed to follow instructions in the escort of a prisoner and one specification of 
intent to deceive when he signed an official records which to be false.  The sentence of 
reprimand and reduction to the grade of SGT/E-5 was adjudged on 26 January 2016.  
The sentence was approved and executed by the convening authority.

	e.  He was retired from active duty on 28 October 2016 with an honorable 
characterization of service under the provisions of AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for 
Retention, Retirement, or Separation), chapter 4 (disability, temporary (enhanced)) in 
the grade of SGT/E-5, date of rank 11 March 2016.  His DD Form 214 shows that he 
completed 14 years, 1 month, and 17 days of active service.

4.  By regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), 
sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a 
Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or 
her office, grand, rank, or rating.  If a Soldier is found unfit because of physical disability, 
this regulation provides for disposition of the Soldier according to applicable laws and 
regulations.

5.  By regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations Separation Documents), sets policy that 
the grade, rate or rank at the time of separation.

6.  By regulation 15-80 (Army Grade Determination Review Board and Grade 
Determination), will make the final discretionary grade determination on behalf of the 
Secretary of the Army for enlisted Soldiers at the time of separation, retiring or retired 
enlisted Soldiers or warrant officer in 30 years cases.  The final grade determinations 
will be majority vote.  In all other cases considered by the Army Grade Determination 
Review Board (AGDRB) will recommend to the appropriate authority the highest grade 
satisfactorily served.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After review of the application and all evidence, the Board found relief is not warranted.  
The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered.  He was reduced in rank 
resulting from non-judicial punishment.  The Board agreed the reduction shows he did 
not perform satisfactorily at the rank of SSG, that he was never again promoted to SSG 
after the reduction, and therefore, the Board recommends denial of the requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	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.

	  
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.




REFERENCES:

1.  Army Regulation (AR) 27-10 (Military Justice), in effect at the time, the grade from 
which reduced must be within the promotion authority of the imposing commander or of 
any officer subordinate to the imposing commander. The imposing commander or any 
subordinate commander has promotion authority within the meaning of Uniform Code of 
Military Justice if the imposing commander has the general authority to appoint to the 
grade from which reduced or to any higher grade.  Where a commander reduces a 
Soldier below a grade to which the commander is  authorized to reduce and if the 
circumstances of the case indicate that the commander was authorized and intended to 
reduce the Soldier at least one grade, a one-grade reduction may be approved.

2.  Army Regulation (AR) 635-5 (Personnel Separations Separation Documents), sets 
policy that the grade, rate or rank at the time of separation.

3.  Army Regulation (AR) 15-80 (Army Grade Determination Review Board and Grade 
Determination), will make the final discretionary grade determination on behalf of the 
Secretary of the Army for enlisted Soldiers at the time of separation, retiring or retired 
enlisted Soldiers or warrant officer in 30 years cases.  The final grade determinations 
will be majority vote.  In all other cases considered by the Army Grade Determination 
Review Board (AGDRB) will recommend to the appropriate authority the highest grade 
satisfactorily served.

   a.  Chapter 2-5 (Unsatisfactory Service), states that service in the highest grade or 
an intermediate grade normally will be considered to have been unsatisfactory when: (a) 
the highest grade was a result of a terminal leave promotion, (b) reversion to a lower 
grade was; expressly for prejudice or cause, owing to misconduct, caused by non-
judicial punishment pursuant to Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 15 or the result 
of the sentence of a court-martial; (c) There is sufficient unfavorable information to 
establish that the Soldier’s service in the grade in question was unsatisfactory.  One 
specific act of misconduct may or may not form the basis for a determination that the 
overall service in that grade was unsatisfactory, regardless of the period of time served 
in grade.  

	b.  Chapter 4-1 d, states all retirements, except for disability separations, involving 
officer who since their last promotion have been the subject of any substantiated 
adverse finding or conclusion form an officially documented investigation, proceeding or 
inquiry will be forwarded for grade determination, provided such information is reflected 
or should be reflected by regulation in the officer’s Official Military Personnel File 
(OMPF).  Examples of such findings or conclusions include but are not limited to, a 
memorandum of reprimand, non-judicial punishment under Uniform Code of Military 
Justice, Article 15 or court-martial or civilian conviction.  Even if the information describe 
above is not required to be filed in the officer’s OMPF, the separation authority may 
forward any retirement that contains information deemed substantiated, adverse and 
material to determination of retired grade.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20170006222

4

1