MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 18 March 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002077080

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson
Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member
Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

---

APPLICANT REQUESTS: That she be reinstated to the pay grade of staff sergeant (SSG/E-6).

APPLICANT STATES: That she was administratively reduced by her enlistment contract dated 26 August 1996. She was separated from the USAR Control Group in the pay grade of E-6. She enlisted within 60 days in the North Carolina Army National Guard (NCARNG) in the pay grade of specialist (E-4/SPC). Her recruiter completed an interview with the 130^th Finance Commander who stated that he would not accept her at a rate higher than E-4. In support of her application, she submits copies of her: separation orders, dated 26 August 1996, enlistment contract dated 30 October 1996; promotion orders; four DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); Nation Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service); and a letter from the NCARNG Inspector General (IG), dated 20 February 1997.

The applicant submits an additional statement to her application. After years in the service and many decisions about her career, both good and bad, she decided to leave the Army. On 26 August 1996, she thought that she was finished with her career. Less than 60 days later, she reenlisted in the ARNG.

A recruiter notified her that there was a finance unit in need of prior service personnel. She agreed to meet with the recruiter who would gather information necessary to support her enlistment. The recruiter later informed her that he was unable to obtain a position higher than E-4 and the commander of the unit did not accept personnel from the outside at a grade higher then E-4. At that time, she finally agreed to enlist in the pay grade of E-4. Three weeks later, her unit was notified for deployment to Europe and several other soldiers were promoted to
E-5 and E-6 prior to departure. She later questioned as to how this could have happened when she was informed three weeks earlier that there were no positions.

She was informed that it was none of her business. Upon arrival in Germany, she asked for assistance from personnel in rectifying the situation pertaining to her grade. She was informed to ask for assistance from the IG. The IG informed her that it would be detrimental to morale to "promote" her to E-6. She explained to the IG that she wanted to be "reinstated to E-6" not "promoted to E-6", which did not happen. Upon completion of her deployment, her family relocated to Pennsylvania and she was transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show she entered active duty on 24 August 1979, as a finance specialist (73C). She was promoted to sergeant (SGT/E-5) on 1 August 1983 with a date of rank of 1 July 1983. She continued to serve until she was honorably discharged on 13 February 1987, in the pay grade of E-5. She was transferred to a troop program unit (TPU).

On 14 February 1987, she enlisted in the Massachusetts Army National Guard (MAARNG), for a period of 3 years, in the pay grade of E-5. She continued to serve until she was honorably discharged on 6 May 1987, in the pay grade of E-5. She was transferred to the USAR.

On 6 May 1987, she enlisted in the USAR for a period of 6 years, in the pay grade of E-5. On 7 December 1987, she was ordered to active duty for training (ADT) and was released from ADT on 29 April 1988.

She performed active duty in the Army/Guard Reserve from 27 August 1989 to 29 December 1992, in the pay grade of E-5. She was released prior to completion of her Army Guard/Reserve (AGR) tour and transferred to a TPU.

She was promoted to SSG/E6 effective 15 June 1993.

She continued to serve in the USAR until she was released on 26 August 1996, in the pay grade of E-6.

She enlisted in the NCARNG on 30 October 1996 for a period of 6 years, in the pay grade of E-4.

She was ordered to ADT on 14 January 1997 and was released from ADT on 10 June 1997 in the pay grade of E-4.

The applicant provided a copy of a letter from the NCARNG IG, dated 20 February 1997. The letter was written in response to her request for IG assistance submitted on 19 February 1997. She requested assistance in obtaining reconsideration on entering the NCARNG at a higher pay grade. The action officer spoke to her recruiter and personnel in the 130^th Finance Battalion. He was informed that there were no vacancies in the Headquarters, 130^th Finance Battalion, for pay grades E-5 or E-6 when she joined the unit in October 1996. Although, there were vacancies for those pay grades in the battalion's three detachments, the battalion commander had a policy to not accept new soldiers into the battalion at a pay grade higher than E-4. She was informed that at the time of her enlistment that her rank would be E-4. The battalion, as a whole, was overstrength. The IG stated that morale suffers when new soldiers arrive into the unit to fill sergeant vacancies ahead of soldiers who have been in the unit for a long time. The battalion commander would not reconsider enlisting the applicant into the unit at a higher grade based on this policy.






She continued to serve in the NCARNG until she was honorably discharged on 31 October 1997, in the pay grade of E-4. She was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).

She was released from the USAR Control Group (Annual Training) and was discharged on 18 August 1998, in the pay grade of E-4.

National Guard Regulation 600-200 establishes standards, policies, and procedures for the management of the ARNG soldiers. Chapter 2 pertains to the ARNG Enlistment program. Paragraph 2-11 states that all enlistments would be made against position vacancies. Paragraph 2-28 pertains to prior service (PS) authorized enlistment pay grades and date of rank (DOR). It states that the pay grade and DOR upon enlistment in the ARNG would be determined in accordance with Table 2-4.

Table 2-4, rule D states that former enlisted members of any US Armed Forces (to include ARNG) are entitled to enlist in a vacant position in the ARNG in the pay grade held at the time of last discharge, but no higher than that authorized for the position.

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 evidence of record shows that the applicant was promoted to SSG/E-6 and was separated from the USAR in the pay grade of E6 on 26 August 1996. The evidence also shows that she reenlisted in the ARNG in the pay grade of E-4/SPC more than 60 days after her discharge.

2. The battalion commander had a policy to not accept new soldiers into the battalion at a pay grade higher than E-4. The IG informed the applicant in his letter, dated 20 February 1997, that morale suffers when new soldiers arrive into the unit to fill sergeant vacancies ahead of soldiers who have been in the unit for a long time. At the time of her enlistment, there were no E-5 or E-6 vacancies and the battalion commander would not reconsider enlisting the applicant at a higher grade based on this policy.

3. In accordance with regulation, enlistments in the ARNG are made against position vacancies. PS members who enlist in the ARNG are entitled to enlist in a vacant position in the pay grade held at the time of last discharge, but no higher than that authorized for the position. It is noted that the applicant was not obligated to accept the recruiter's offer; however, she accepted and enlisted in the pay grade of E-4. She was later released from the NCARNG in the pay grade of E-4 and continued to serve in the USAR until discharged on 18 August 1998.
4. Based on the evidence provided, the applicant was not administratively reduced by her enlistment contract and is not entitled to reinstatement in the pay grade of E-6/SSG. The Board finds that no injustice or error has occurred in the applicant's case.

5. In order to justify 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 this requirement.

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

_JLP_____ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077080
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20030318
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19980818
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . IRR . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	192/322
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.