APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That her military records be corrected to show her grade as E-5.

APPLICANT STATES:  That on 13 September 1991 she joined the USAR for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 91C (practical nurse).  She contends that her recruiter told her that to enter 91C training she would have to be reduced to grade E-4 (she was discharged from the active Army as an E-5) and she has since learned that this was untrue.  Additionally, she was unable to obtain a 91C training seat and consequently left the active USAR for the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) on 27 November 1992.  She believes that since the 91C training she enlisted for did not take place as intended she should have her previous grade of E-5 restored.

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

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 July 1979 and received training as an interrogator.  She was eventually promoted to grade E-5 and was honorably separated in that grade on 11 April 1984.

On 13 September 1991 she enlisted for 6 years in the USAR for training in MOS 91C and was assigned against a projected vacancy in the 810th Convalescent Center.

Her enlistment contract shows that that her authorized enlistment pay grade was E-4 as determined in accordance with Army Regulation 601-210, table 3-4, rule E.  It provided also that she was required to attend a period of civilian training followed by 4 weeks of active duty proficiency training prior to award of the MOS for which she enlisted.

On 9 August 1992 the applicant was issued a letter by her unit commander advising her that she had accrued 4 unexcused absences from training.  She received other unexcused absence letters on 27 September 1992 and 11 October 1992 resulting in a total of 12 unexcused absences in a 1 year period.  On 26 October 1992 she was advised that she had been declared an unsatisfactory and would be transferred to the IRR for the balance of her service obligation.
The file contains no evidence that she ever responded to any of the unexcused absence letters although each of the letters invites an explanation of the reason for the absence from the recipient.

On 27 November 1992 she was removed from the 810th Convalescent Center rolls and transferred to the IRR as an unsatisfactory participant.

Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program, table 3-4, then in effect, provides rules for determining the enlistment pay grade for prior active service personnel who are enlisting in the USAR.  Rule D provides that an applicant who was a former Army enlisted member who enlists in the USAR more than 30 months after discharge will be enlisted at least one grade lower than at last discharge, but no lower than E-3.

Rule E of the same table, provides that former members of the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard who enlist more than 30 months after discharge will be enlisted at least one grade lower but no more than three grades lower than at last discharge, but no lower than E-3.

Army Regulation 135-91, Service Obligations, Methods of Fulfillment, Participation Requirements, and Enforcement Procedures, provides in pertinent part, that a soldier is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills occur during a 1-year period.

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.  The applicant was enlisted in the USAR on 13 September 1991 in the proper grade of E-4.  Although her enlistment contract incorrectly cite table 3-4, rule E, as the authority for her grade determination, (it should have cited table 3-4, rule D), there was no adverse impact on her since both rules require a one grade reduction for soldiers who enlist in the USAR after more than 30 months since their last separation.
2.  The available record do not reflect the reasons why she did not attend the initial training for her 91C MOS, but do show that after being assigned to the unit for less than 1 year she began to accumulate unexcused absences that culminated in her being declared an unsatisfactory participant.  Since the record does not contain any replies to the unexcused absence letters, it is not possible to ascertain the reasons for her noncompliance with unit training requirements.

3.  The actions by the Army in this case appear to have been proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there appears to be 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