IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE:  1 February 2022

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210010045


APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his previous request that his rank and pay 
grade of master sergeant/E-8 be restored.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:
Reconsideration letter

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 AR2002077226 on 11 February 2003.

2.  The applicant stated in his reconsideration letter:

	a.  The purpose of this letter is to resubmit his request to be advanced to the highest 
grade he held in the U.S Army. On 23 October 1999, he was reduced from the grade of 
E-8 (first sergeant) to the grade of E- 7 (sergeant first class (SFC)).

	b.  He discusses the reasons he believes his rank should be restored. He discussed 
his attributes in the U.S. Army during his career.

	c.  His post service accomplishments are discussed in detail. He also detailed his 
post service career and his responsibilities. He was an E- 8 for seven months before the 
incident, for which he was reduced to E-7, occurred. Since then, he has accomplished a 
lot and he is still an asset to the U.S Army. (The entire letter is available in documents).

3.  A review of the applicant’s service records shows:

	a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 June 1980. He held military occupational 
specialty 31U (Signal Support Systems Specialist).

	b.  He served in Saudi Arabia from 28 December 1990 until 17 May 1991.

	c.  Orders Number 351-9, issued by the Total Army Personnel Command 
(PERSCOM), on 17 December 1998, shows the applicant's promotion to master 
sergeant/E-8, effective 1 January 1999.

	d.  His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows in Item 18 
(Appointments and Reductions) that the applicant was reduced to SFC/E-7 on 
10 February 2000. The facts and circumstances surrounding the reduction action are 
not on file in the record.

	e.  In his previous application, the applicant reported that he pled and was found 
guilty at a court-martial of three specifications of assault against his wife.  As a result, he 
was sentenced to be reduced and to be confined for 60 days. Prior to his trial, his 
battalion commander ordered pre­ trial confinement and he was placed in confinement 
at Fort Sill, OK, and he remained there for 78 days.  The pre-trial confinement decision 
was later affirmed by the Magistrate, despite the lack of any attempt at imposing a 
lesser restraint. 

	f.  Orders Number 096-0356, issued by Headquarters, US Army Maneuver Support 
Center, Fort Leonard Wood, MO, on 5 April 2000, shows the applicant was released 
from active duty on 31 July 2000, and his placement on the Retired List on 1 August 
2000, in the retired grade of SFC/E-7.

	g.  The applicant was honorably retired due to sufficient service for retirement on 
31 July 2000. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 
shows in:

*	Item 4a (Grade, Rate, or Rank): SFC
*	Item 4b (Pay Grade): E-7
*	Item 12h (Effective Date of Pay Grade): 2000|02|10

	h.  The applicant previously applied to the ABCMR for his rank and pay grade to be 
reinstated. On 24 February 2003, the ABCMR denied his request.

	i.  The applicant previously applied to the Army Grade Determination Review Board 
(AGDRB) for advancement on the retired list. On 1 December 2009, the AGDRB denied 
his request.

4.  By regulation, Army Regulation (AR) 15-80, paragraph 2-5, provides that service in 
the highest grade or an intermediate grade will normally be considered to be 
unsatisfactory when reversion to a lower grade is the result of a court-martial sentence 
or punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice.

5.  By regulation, (AR 635-5), states for block 4 (GRADE, RATE or RANK). Enter active 
duty grade or rank and pay grade at time of separation from Personnel Qualification 
Record/Enlisted Record Brief.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within 
the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The applicant’s 
contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. 
Board members did not see new or additional evidence that merits reversing the prior 
decisions on his advancement. As a result, Board members voted to deny 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) 15-80 (Army Grade Determination Review Board and Grade 
Determinations), paragraph 2-5, provides that service in the highest grade or an 
intermediate grade will normally be considered to be unsatisfactory when reversion to a 
lower grade is the result of a court-martial sentence or punishment under Article 15, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice.

2.  AR 635-5 (Separation Documents), states for block 4 (GRADE, RATE or RANK). 
Enter active duty grade or rank and pay grade at time of separation from Enlisted 
Record Brief.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20210010045


4

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1