APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Correction of his separation document (DD Form 214) dated 10 January 1993 to show that he separated from the service in the pay grade of E-4.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That at the time he separated from the service he was informed that his pay grade was E-1.  However, the Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) records continue to indicate that he is an E-4.

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

The applicant enlisted on 3 October 1989 for a period of 3 years and 14 weeks.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-4 on 3 December 1991.

On 14 October 1992 orders were published which indicated the applicant’s rank as that of a specialist (E-4) and directed him to be released from active duty on 8 January 1993 and transferred to the USAR Control group (Reinforcement) on his scheduled expiration of term of service (ETS).  The orders were subsequently amended on 6 January 1993 to reflect a change in his separation date to 10 January 1993 and his pay grade as E-1.

The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 10 January 1993 and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).  His DD Form 214 indicates that he was separated in the pay grade of E-1.

In the processing of this case, a staff member of the Board contacted officials at the local Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to determine if the applicant had been reduced in grade.  Officials at the DFAS indicate that nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on 14 December 1992.  However, the applicant separated from the service before the punishment could be completely served.  There was no indication what the punishment was, simply that there was punishment involved and that the applicant separated before the punishment could be served.

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

1.  It is apparent, based on the amendment to the applicant’s orders which reduced him from pay grade E-4 to E-1, that action was taken to reduce the applicant before his separation from the service.  

2.  Although the source documents are not present in the available records, it must be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the applicant was properly reduced in accordance with applicable laws and regulations in effect at the time.

3.  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