APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That the pay grade on his enlistment in the USAR be corrected from E-4 to E-5.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was unaware that he was enlisting in pay grade E-4.  He had been rushed through his USAR enlistment processing and was told that he was being assigned to the USAR unit as an E-5 in an E-4 position.  He had been promoted to pay grade E-5 in the Army National Guard (ARNG) approximately a year prior to his enlistment in the USAR and would not have accepted the enlistment in the USAR if he had known it would mean that he would lose his promotion.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted in the Texas Army National Guard (TXARNG) in pay grade E-4 on 30 March 1988 with prior active and reserve service.  He was promoted to pay grade E-5 on 1 September 1991.

On 24 September 1992 he enlisted in the USAR at the age of 46 in pay grade E-4 for 6 years.

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve (OCAR).  The OCAR stated that a guardsman can only be enlisted for a reserve vacancy which is in his grade or lower; that he cannot be enlisted for a higher graded vacancy.  Therefore, the applicant was properly enlisted in pay grade E-4 since the vacancy he was filling was that grade.  However, the OCAR stated that it appears that the applicant did not understand that he was taking a reduction in grade and recommends approval of the applicant’s request.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify a correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The Board does not accept that the applicant was unaware that he was enlisting in pay grade E-4.  His enlistment contract clearly shows what grade he was enlisting for, and the applicant was of the age and had the years of service to understand an enlistment contract.

3.  The advisory opinion from the OCAR has been carefully considered.  However, there is no indication that there was any misunderstanding in the applicant’s enlistment.  Therefore, the Board does not accept the OCAR’s recommendation as to grant the applicant’s request would be giving him a benefit not afforded others in like situations.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director