Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9609057AC070209
Original file (9609057AC070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
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

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014308

    Original file (20080014308.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his reduction Orders Number 004-001, dated 22 April 1994, and his reassignment Orders Numbers 025-008, for unsatisfactory participation, dated 10 May 1994, be removed from his OMPF (Official Military Personnel File). The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 19 February 1992, for 8 years. Army Regulation 140-158 prescribes policies and procedures pertaining to the classification, promotion, reduction, and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010745

    Original file (20070010745.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Soldiers in the grades of E-5 through E-9 could request to appear before a reduction board. The applicant's record shows he served on active duty for 9 years, 6 months, and 25 days in the rank of SGT with a date of rank of 1 June 1972 when he was discharged from the Regular Army on 8 May 1978. Upon completion of this period of active duty, he was released to the USAR and the DD Form 214 issued on 17 July 1991 shows his rank as specialist/pay grade E-4.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003309

    Original file (20150003309.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 July 1992, VAARNG published Orders 146-57 discharging him from the ARNG and assigning him to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Annual Training) effective 31 July 1992 by reason of being an unsatisfactory participant, in accordance with chapter 8 of National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management). This regulation states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when he or she accrues nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills during a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002660

    Original file (20090002660.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to show proof of his promotion to sergeant/pay grade E-5, all of his medals and awards, his U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) units, and his units in the Republic of Vietnam. On 14 July 1988, the commander of the 341st Medical Group, Seagoville, TX, returned the applicant's request to his unit commander stating the request was incomplete and required a separate letter from the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007718C070208

    Original file (20040007718C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant did not appear. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. He signed the return receipt for the notification of his proposed separation on two separate occasions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003161

    Original file (20090003161.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The regulation also states that, when a Soldier is being processed for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability, continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until the Soldier is scheduled for separation or retirement creates a presumption that the Soldier is fit. With respect to the applicant’s retirement, the evidence of record shows that the applicant completed 18 years and 4 months of service for pay at the time he was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150007495

    Original file (20150007495.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests: * correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show his separation date as 17 December 1985 vice 25 October 1979 * upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge from the U.S. Army Reserve to honorable 2. On 4 August 1982, Headquarters, First U.S. Army, Fort Meade, MD published Orders 149-20 ordering the applicant released from Company A, 99th Signal Battalion, and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005787

    Original file (20120005787.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. On 10 April 1974, Office of the Adjutant General, USAR Components Personnel and Administration Center, St. Louis, MO, published Letter Orders Number 040378 transferring him...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020930

    Original file (20120020930.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant enlisted in the MAARNG for 8 years on 26 April 2008. In connection with this enlistment, he completed several forms as follows: a. DD Form 1966/4 (Record of Military Processing), wherein he agreed to complete 6 years in the Selected Reserve with the 772nd Military Police Company in MOS 31B. He agreed to serve for 6 years in the critical MOS of 31B and in a Military Police unit in exchange for a $20,000 enlistment bonus to be paid in two installments, the first upon completion...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011087

    Original file (20120011087.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions to general under honorable conditions and a copy of his service records. The ABCMR corrects records; however, the Board is not the custodian of military records and therefore does not provide copies of military records. The applicant was required to attend all scheduled unit training assemblies and annual training periods and he was required to find a new Reserve unit in Delaware.