ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 November 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170008381 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his previous request to change his paygrade/rank in the Georgia Army National Guard from sergeant (SGT)/E-5 to Sergeant First Class (SFC)/E-7, effective 8 December 1982. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * Reconsideration letter * two Army Achievement Medal (AAM) certificates * DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II), page 3 * Member of Congress (MOC) letter * Retention Control Points Policy memorandum FACTS: 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 AR20150008600 on 19 April 2016. 2. The applicant provided new evidence and arguments not previously considered by the Board that warrants consideration at this time. 3. The applicant states: a. He received a letter explaining his first request was denied and he disagrees with that decision. In his first request, the Board indicated he had meritorious service; however, his good service was not considered when the Board made its decision. No portion of his original appeal was granted, the entire request was denied. The Board indicated that he voluntarily accepted an administrative reduction in rank in 1982. This is not accurate. After 8 years of diligently requesting active duty status, he entered on active duty in 1982. He was sure his qualifications and experience would make him eligible for almost immediate promotion to pay grade E-7, but this did not occur. b. Due to his military service and performance, his promotion was accelerated to E-6 after he entered on active duty. He does not understand why he was administratively reduced when he left the Reserves as an E-7. He was full time U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) and Army National Guard (ARNG). He only accepted this reduction in rank because he felt this was his only option to receive the remaining years he required for retirement. Being denied the E-7 promotion, his commander recommended he appear before the DA Qualitative Screening Board (DAQSB) to appeal the decision. The DAQSB was concerned about the 1973 discharge. The letter was not clear or justified the discharge. The DAQSB’s denial letter stated his discharge was simply a reflection of the times. However, the discharge clearly affected his promotion even though it was due to no fault of failure of his duties. The Retention Control Points policy was not in effect at the time of his discharge in 1973. He was told if he waited 1 year, he could be reconsidered for promotion at that time. Due to his age and having reached retirement eligibility, he retired before he was reassessed for that promotion. c. His last argument for this cases is that he served his country with honor and dignity. He almost lost his life in the Tet Offense, from March to April 1968. He was an infantry squad leader with the 101st Airborne Division. He fought in the Vietnam War and was promoted to E-7 at the time. He feels very confident that his honors and duties associated during this time grade should have been sufficient to support the decision to reevaluate the E-7 promotion. The administrative reduction that occurred in 1982 should be corrected for him. d. The documentation he has enclosed will support and demonstrate his meritorious service. These include two AAM’s from 1984 and 1987, as well as a record of when his files went before the DA board. As a 100 percent disabled veteran, who is 75 years of age, consider his case and compensate him from 1982 to 1999 for the E-7 rank that was taken away from him with no reasonable cause. 4. The applicant provides copies of the following: a. Two certificates, dated 5 January 1984 and 25 December 1987, awarding him the AAM for meritorious achievement from 25 October to 2 November 1983 and for making the 18th Personnel and Administration Battalion’s reenlistment program the best of any unit. b. A DA Form 2-1, page 3, which contains the entry “Copy of Personnel Qualification Record forwarded to the U.S. Army Enlisted Record on 16 July 1987 for the Fiscal Year 1986 E-7 Promotion Board.” c. A Retention Control Points Policy Memorandum, updated April 2016, establishing implementation of retention control points that were consistent for enlisted personnel serving on active duty across all Army command. The memorandum stated the policy did not apply to Soldiers serving in the USAR or ARNG who were mobilized. d. A letter, dated 14 March 2017, wherein an MOC advised him of information received from the Army congressional liaison pertaining to the process for submitting a rebuttal to the Board’s denial. 5. Review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. He was inducted into the Army of the United States on 17 August 1960. He was honorably discharged on 27 October 1960, for immediate enlistment in the Regular Army (RA). He enlisted in the RA on 28 October 1960. He was honorably released from active duty on 25 October 1963 and was transferred to the USAR. b. He reenlisted in the RA on 10 December 1963, for 3 year. He served in Vietnam from 5 February 1968 to 4 February 1969. He was promoted to the rank/pay grade of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 on 10 November 1968. c. He reenlisted in the RA on 26 November 1969, for 4 years. He served in Vietnam 2 November 1971 to 22 June 1972. d. On 30 January 1973, the DAQSB notified him of the determination for denial of his reenlistment. e. He was honorably discharged, in pay grade E-7, on 20 November 1973. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 13 years, 1 months, and 23 days of active service. f. He enlisted in the Georgia ARNG (GAARNG), in pay grade E-7, 6 September 1978. He was honorably discharged from the GAARNG on 5 November 1980. g. He again enlisted in the GAARNG, in pay grade E-7, on 18 July 1981, for 1 year. He extended his enlistment on 12 June 1982, for 3 years. He again extended his enlistment on 8 December 1982, for an additional year. h. Orders Number 241-20, issued by the Office of The Adjutant General, GAARNG on 8 December 1982, announced his administrative reduction from pay grade E-7 to E-5, effective the same day. i. He was ordered to active duty for 30 months and entered in pay grade E-5. He was promoted to the rank/pay grade of SSG/E-6 on 1 June 1983. He reenlisted in the RA on 10 September 1985, for 3 years and on 8 April 1988, for 4 years. j. He was honorably retired, in pay grade E-6, on 28 February 1989. The following day, he was placed on the Retired List as an E-6. k. On 27 April 2015, in response to his application, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) determined the following: * the highest grade he served satisfactorily for the computation of retired pay was pay grade E-7 * the date become, or would become, eligible for advancement on the Retired List would be determined by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) * once that date was determined, HRC would notify the applicant and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) of the advancement l. On 10 June 2-015, HRC notified him of the AGDRB determination and receipt of retired pay in the rank/pay grade of SFC/E-7, effective 24 February 1999. DFAS records show he was receiving retired pay in the rank of SFC. m. ABCMR Docket Number AR20150008600 shows on 19 April 2016 the ABCMR determined the following: * a letter, dated 30 January 1973, from the Office of the Adjutant General, GAARNG clearly stated the applicant was denied further reenlistment by the DAQSB, explained the purpose of the DAQSB and the reasons for the denial decision * he enlisted and reenlisted in the USAR and ARNG in pay grade E-7 * he voluntarily took an administrative reduction to pay grade E-5 on 8 December 1982 * he was ordered to active duty in that pay grade on 10 December 1982, for 36 months * he was subsequently promoted to the rank/pay grade of SSG/E-6 on 1 July 1983 * he enlisted in the RA, in pay grade E-6, on 10 September 1985 * he retired in pay grade E-6 on 28 February 1989 * there was no evidence he was promoted above pay grade E-6 during the period from 10 September 1985 to 28 February 1989 * the AGDRB determined the highest grade he satisfactorily served in was pay grade E-7 * HRC indicated he was advanced on the Retired List to the rank/pay grade of SFC/E-7 effective 24 February 1999 * there was no evidence he was promoted to pay grades E-8 and/or E-9 during his Army career BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found the relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered. He requested that his paygrade/rank of SFC/E-7 be reinstated effective 12 December 1982, while in the GAARNG. The Board noted that the applicant voluntarily joined the GAARNG and accepted an administrative reduction. The Board agreed the request for relief has no merit. 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 135-180 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve Retirement for Non-Regular Service) states that if an enlisted Soldier was transferred to the Retired Reserve or discharged on or after 25 February 1975, the Soldier's retired grade will be the highest grade held satisfactorily 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 and the case will be forwarded to the Secretary of the Army’s Ad Hoc Review Board for final determination of the Soldier’s retirement grade if, during the mandatory review of the Soldier’s records, 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. 2. Title 10, USC, section 3964, provides the legal authority for advancement on the Retired List. It states, in pertinent part, that retired Soldiers are entitled, when their active service plus service on the Retired List totals 30 years, to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade they held and in which they satisfactorily served while on active duty as determined by the Secretary of the service concerned. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170008381 5 1