MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:


         BOARD DATE: 18 MARCH 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002077917

         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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior 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: Reconsideration of his request to have his rank as a staff sergeant restored.

APPLICANT STATES: In correspondence to his congressional representative, that the Board has continued to deny his request without fully evaluating the evidence he has submitted. He still maintains that AFTM (Additive Full-Time Manning) and AGR (Active Guard/Reserve) personnel “were not allowed to assume any MTOE (Modification Table of Organization and Equipment) positions” and cites OMD (Oklahoma Military Department) Pamphlet 600-5 as the authority for this prohibition.

He also maintains that according to orders number 114-13, which were issued on 14 June 1982, he was slotted in “paragraph 037 line 02,” which was a TDA (Table of Distribution and Allowances) position with the 45^th Troop Command” and attached to the 2120^th Supply and Services Company as the “FTM (Full-Time Military) Unit Maintenance NCO. He states that according to those orders (114-13) he remained in that position until 1984 when he was reduced from pay grade E-6 to pay grade E-5. He states that his reduction order incorrectly reflects him as being assigned to “paragraph 117 line 02” and contends that orders 15-18, dated 23 January 1984, which amended the 14 June 1982 orders 114-13 and was merely a means of “covering up what happened.”

He continues to argue that the Board has failed to evaluate all of the evidence he has submitted for consideration.

In support of this request the applicant submits a copy of the Board’s 7 May 2002 denial, a copy of a 26 January 1981 memorandum from the Oklahoma Military Department converting FTM personnel to AGR status, orders 53-13 dated
18 March 1982 assigning him to “paragraph 108, Line 02” with the 1120^th Maintenance Company, orders 114-12 dated 14 June 1982 attaching him to the 2120^th Supply and Services activity, orders 114-13 dated 14 June 1982 slotting him in “paragraph 037, line 02” with the 45^th Troop Command, copies of his
10 January 1984 voluntary request for administrative reduction, and orders 15-18 dated 23 January 1984, which amended orders 114-13 dated 14 June 1982.

With the exception of the 26 January 1981 memorandum from the Oklahoma Military Department, the Board has previously seen all of the remaining items.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 3 November 1999 (AR1999022976) and reconsideration of his case on 7 May 2002 (AR2001066044).

In view of the fact that the applicant maintains that evidence which was previously submitted was not fully discussed, or evaluated, in the Board’s earlier decision, the Board has determined that reconsideration is warranted in order to fully explain the Board’s assessment of the applicant’s situation and to further explain the Board’s conclusions and determination.

Evidence submitted with the applicant’s most recent request for reconsideration, and evidence, which the Board has previously reviewed, indicates that on
26 January 1981 the Oklahoma Military Department announced the conversion of all Full-Time Military (FTM) personnel to Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) status. That same document noted that FTM personnel included the following categories of individuals:

         Additive Full-Time Manning (AFTM) Program personnel
         Conversion to Full-Time Manning (CFTM) Test Program personnel
         Full-Time Recruiting Force (FTRF) personnel

In spite of the fact that the 26 January 1981 document noted that AGR was a general term “referring to all Army National Guard full-time military programs” the terms FTM and AFTM continued to be utilized in subsequent correspondence, documents, and orders, after the conversion date.

The Oklahoma Military Department (OMD) Pamphlet 600-5, which the applicant has submitted previously, and which was reviewed by the Board during its November 1999 original consideration and during its May 2002 reconsideration, is undated. However, it does note that the AFTM program was conceived in response to a Department of Defense survey which identified a need for greater mobilization readiness for high mobilization priority units of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. Paragraph 2-3 of Chapter 2 indicated that special TDA positions had been created for the program and that these positions were located on the TDA for Command and Control Headquarters-45^th Troop Command. It stated that AFTM personnel were mobilization assets of the units where their AFTM position was located and that they would be “integrated into the structure of the unit when TOE vacancies occur.” It indicted that the “rank and MOS of AFTM positions are based on MTOE positions in the units where the positions are located, so as to maximize the utility of AFTM personnel upon mobilization.”

Orders submitted by the applicant indicate that on 18 March 1982, orders number 53-11, authorized the applicant’s continuance of active duty. It indicated that the applicant, who was assigned to the 1120^th Maintenance Company in Ada, Oklahoma, was being ordered to report to that same organization effective
30 May 1982 for assignment to “paragraph 108 line 02” an MTOE position which had previously been a “technician position – Supply Clerk – GS-5.”

On 14 June 1982 orders 114-12 were issued reassigning the applicant from the 1120^th Maintenance Company to Command and Control Headquarters-45^th Troop Command effective 21 June 1982 with further attachment to the 2120^th Supply and Service Company in Wewoka, Oklahoma.

That same day, 14 June 1982, orders number 114-13 assigned the applicant to “paragraph 037 line 02” which was part of the 45^th Troop Command TDA. This action appears to have been in line with OMD Pamphlet 600-5, which permitted the accounting of AGR personnel in the 45th Troop Command TDA until a TOE vacancy occurred within their mobilization unit, and they could be integrated into that unit’s manning document. In this case the applicant's mobilization unit was the 2120^th Supply and Service Company, which he was attached to by order
114-12.

On 10 January 1984, as noted in previous Board proceedings, the applicant voluntarily requested administrative reduction to “fill a unit vacancy…para 117 line 04” in order that another individual could be assigned to his “current position…para 117 line 02.” The applicant submitted the request to the commander, 2120^th Supply and Service Company and authenticated his request as a member of that same organization. That request was subsequently approved.

Orders 15-18, dated 23 January 1984, which the applicant contends were issued to “cover up what happened,” contains two actions. The first action, paragraph 1, amended “so much of Orders 194-40 this HQ dtd 26 Sep 82” and pertained to paragraph and line number assignment of another individual who was being moved from an E-6 MTOE position (paragraph 103 line 01) to an E-5 MTOE position (paragraph 103 line 02) in the same manner as the applicant. The second portion of the order, paragraph 2, which pertains to the applicant, amended “so much of orders 114-13 this HQ dtd 14 Jun 82 as amended by [emphasis added]” which moved the applicant from one MTOE position to another MTOE position in accordance with his 10 January 1984 request.

The applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contain orders number 200-20, dated 8 October 1982, which amended orders 114-13 to show that the applicant was assigned to the 2120^th Supply and Service Company “as excess to auth str (authorized strength)” effective 15 October 1982 and on 17 June 1983, orders number 124-8 further amended orders 114-13 and 200-20 to reassign the applicant from “excess” to “para 117 line 02” of the 2120^th Supply and Service Company MTOE.

Subsequent orders contained in the applicant’s file note that he was assigned to several other MTOE positions, in his capacity as an AGR soldier, until he retired for length of service in 1994.

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. Contrary to the applicant’s contention, OMB Pamphlet 600-5 does not preclude the assignment of AGR personnel to MTOE positions. Rather, the pamphlet clearly indicates that at the time the AFTM Program (which was later wrapped under the umbrella of the AGR Program) was instituted, a requirement existed to enable the Oklahoma Army National Guard to account for those AFTM individuals until they could be “integrated into the structure of the unit when TOE vacancies occur.” Documents in the applicant’s file confirm that he was accounted for in the 45^th Troop Command TDA (paragraph 037 line 02) by orders 114-13 dated 14 June 1982 and that he was ultimately assigned to paragraph 117 line 02, on the 2120^th Supply and Service Company MTOE, by orders 124-8 which amended the original 114-13 order.

2. While the applicant maintains that he was assigned to paragraph 037 line 02 between June 1982 and January 1984, and was never assigned to paragraph 117 line 02, the evidence of records confirms otherwise.

3. The Board notes that in January 1984 the applicant voluntarily requested reduction from pay grade E-6 to E-5 and transfer from paragraph 117 line 02 to paragraph 117 line 04. His authentication of the request with that information contained on the document supports the Board’s conclusion that he was well aware of the paragraph and line number to which he was assigned.

4. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

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 __ __AAO__ __MVT __ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077917
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20030318
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	110.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.