ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  22 October 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170017201


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  reconsideration of her case to correct her DD Form 214 
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show her rank as master 
sergeant (MSG) instead of staff sergeant (SSG).

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	DD Form 214 
*	Physical Disability Information Report
*	Orders 162-1314, dated 11 Jun 2014, Release Orders
*	Congressional letter, dated 14 May 2008
*	Promotion Certificate
*	Email
*	Promotion Board Notification Email, dated 10 May 2005
*	Orders 043-47, dated 11 March 1992, Promotion Orders
*	DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action)
*	Email
*	Calendar Year (CY) 03 Staff Sergeant thru Sergeant Major, Reserve Component 
(RC), Individual Ready Reserve (IRR)/Individual Mobilization Augmentation 
(IMA)/ Extended Active Duty (EAD) Promotion Board Results
*	Newspaper Article

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 AR20140013463 on 23 October 2015.

2.  Applicant states she requests the error and injustice of not being promoted to be 
corrected.  She had been promoted in the grade of SFC on 1 April 1992 while in the U.S 
Army Reserves (USAR).  She made the promotion list for MSG while serving in the 
USAR.  She did not receive any punishment, only loss of security clearance, which was 
later regained.  The other Soldiers all were promoted, even those with Article 15’s, and 
no security clearance.  These disparities failed her as a Soldier, especially completing 
all schools, as excuse did not complete, actually had been grandfathered, still no 
consideration.  It’s been bias towards promotion for years as it has gotten progressively 
grim over the years.  She had brought this to the attention of personnel reference 
disparity and injustice has made no apparent effort to find the cause of the bias.  There 
has been evidence military justice has been reported of significant disparity varied 
among Soldiers.  Military leadership has been aware of the injustice process for years 
and had made no effort to hinder and has gone to great length to tout the fairness of the 
system.  It’s been systematic over the years of injustice for a promotion well deserved 
served country from Women’s Army Corps to 2014.

3.  The applicant provided:

	a.  A Physical Disability Information Report dated 11 June 2014, showing the 
applicants rank as SSG/E6 and Retired Grade as E07

	b.  DD Form 214 with an ending date of 8 September 2014, shows block 4a. (Grade, 
Rate or Rank) shows “SSG”, and Block 4b. (Pay Grade) shows E06

	c.  Retirement Orders dated 11 June 2014 showing the applicants rank as SSG/E6 
and Retired Grade of rank as E07.

	d.  A congressional letter addressed to the applicant from Senator X___, dated 14 
May 2008.

	e.  A Certificate of Promotion, promoting the applicant to Sergeant First Class, in the 
USAR, dated 1 April 1992.

	f.  An email dated 10 May 2005, informing the applicant that she met the initial 
criteria for promotion in the USAR.

	g.  USAR Promotion orders dated 11 March 1992, promoting the applicant to 
Sergeant First Class.

	h.  Email’s dated 23 September 2005 and 27 September 2005 congratulating the 
applicant on being selected for promotion to E8/MSG in the USAR.

	i.  News articles depicting the unfair treatment black troops received in the military.

4.  A review of her service records shows:

	a.  Having had prior service in the United States Army Reserves (USAR), the 
applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 August 2008 in the rank/grade of staff 
sergeant (SSG)/E-6, Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 21C Bridge Crewmember.

b.  On 30 May 2014, a Physical Evaluation Board Proceedings (PEB) determined
the applicant had the following disabling conditions in which the applicant concurred 
with and she did not request reconsideration.  The PEB recommended:

*	Combined rating was 60%
*	Disposition be permanent disability retirement
*	Rank/Grade was shown as SSG/E6

	c.  On 8 September 2014, she was honorably retired due to disability, permanent 
(enhanced).  She completed 6 years and 27 days of net active service this period.  
Block 4a. (Grade, Rate or Rank) shows “SSG”, and Block 4b. (Pay Grade) shows E06.

5.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribed the 
separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from 
active military service or control of the Army.  It established standardized policy for the 
preparation of the DD Form 214.  It stated the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the 
Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty service.  It provides a brief, clear-
cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or 
discharge.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined 
relief was not warranted.  Based upon the documentary evidence provided by the 
applicant and found within the military service record showing the applicant was 
medically retired from the Regular Army Soldier serving on active duty and the 
promotion results provided depicting USAR (Army Reserve) promotion results, the 
Board concluded there was insufficient evidence to show an error or injustice which 
would warrant making a change to the applicant’s record.

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.  Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military 
records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  
This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely 
file within the three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in 
the interest of justice to do so.

2.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets 
forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 12 deals with 
retirement for length of service and provides that Soldiers who have completed 20, but 
less than 30 years of AFS and who have completed all required service obligations are 
eligible but not entitled, to retire upon request.

NOTHING FOLLOWS

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20170017201

4

1