APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the orders transferring him from his USAR unit to the USAR Control Group and the orders discharging him from the USAR both be corrected to show his rank as sergeant first class. He also requests that his transfer orders be corrected to show that his reassignment was due to satisfactory participation instead of unsatisfactory participation, and that his military occupational specialty (MOS) on those orders be corrected to show that he was a tactical telecommunications center operator, military intelligence, cryptography. APPLICANT STATES: he was excused from his unit’s annual training, as evidenced by the annex to his unit’s annual training orders. As such, he should not have been assigned to the USAR Control Group by reason of unsatisfactory participation. As for his rank and his MOS, his records will verify that errors were made on those entries. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and incomplete Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) show: He enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 May 1966, was awarded the MOS of tactical telecommunications center operator, served in Vietnam, and was promoted to pay grade E-5. He was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the USAR Control Group on 4 May 1970. He was honorably discharged from the USAR Control Group on 4 May 1972. He enlisted in the USAR on 12 November 1973 for assignment to a troop program unit. He served in an Army Security Agency company as a communications center cryptographic teletype operator. He served continuously and was reassigned to a transportation company where he served as a truckmaster. He was promoted to pay grade E-6 and then E-7 (sergeant first class). On 8 July 1981 the applicant’s commander submitted a DA Form 4651-R, Request for Reserve Component Assignment or Attachment, requesting the applicant be involuntarily transferred to the USAR Control Group. The applicant signed that form but added that he did not agree with the involuntary assignment, stating that “It is my belief this is being done based on the attached MFR’s dtd Apr 12, 1981, May 16, 1981, and 7 Jul, 1981.” On 2 November 1981 orders were issued reducing the applicant from pay grade E-7 to E-6. On 8 November 1981 orders were published reducing the applicant from pay grade E-6 to pay grade E-5 (specialist five). On 9 February 1982 the applicant was involuntarily assigned to the USAR Control Group by reason of his failure to meet training requirements/unsatisfactory participation.  The order transferring him has his rank listed as specialist five (E-5) and listed his MOS as a tactical telecommunications center operator. On 15 October 1984, while assigned to the USAR Control Group, the applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR. Those orders also show his rank as specialist five (E-5), and his MOS as a tactical telecommunications center operator. Army Regulation 140-158, paragraph 3-38, provides for reducing Reservists in pay grade for inefficiency. This paragraph defines inefficiency as not only technical incompetence, but also any act or course of conduct which is evidence that the member concerned lacks those abilities and qualities required and expected of a person of his grade and experience. Army Regulation 135-91, Service Obligations, Methods of Fulfillment, Participation Requirements, and Enforcement Procedures, defines an unsatisfactory participant as a Reservist who accrues nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills in a 1-year period; as a person who fails to attend annual training without being excused; or as a person who is given a conditional release to join another unit and fails to join another unit.  Paragraphs 6-22 and 6-24 of this regulation provides the authority to transfer unsatisfactory participants to USAR Control Groups. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: 1. The available evidence shows that the applicant was reduced in grade and involuntarily assigned to the USAR Control Group by competent authority. 2. His contention that his MOS was incorrectly listed on his transfer and discharge orders is not substantiated by the evidence of record. The fact that he worked in a position which dealt with cryptography does not automatically entitle him to be awarded an additional skill identifier. 3. Documentation that would explain or support the action taken by the Army in this case, such as the proceedings of a reduction board and letters notifying the applicant of unexcused absences from training, which are normally filed in the MPRJ, are missing. Also, the passage of time (more than 10 years) considerably hampers a fair review of this case. 4. While the evidence shows that the applicant was excused from annual training on one occasion, it is not plausible to believe, as the applicant contends, that a reservist would be transferred to the Control Group because of a single absence from training for which he had been validly excused.  It is reasonable, however, to surmise, that he was declared an unsatisfactory participant for one of the two remaining reasons for which a reservist can be declared an unsatisfacory participant, i.e., he missed nine unit training assemblies or he moved and failed to find another unit. 5. There is a rebuttable presumption that what the Army did in this case was correct. The applicant’s failure to provide more specific details and/or material and relevant evidence adds validity to a presumption of administrative regularity in his reductions in rank and in his transfer from his unit to the USAR Control Group. 6. 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