| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Beverly A. Young | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member | |
| Ms. Yolanda Maldonado | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his rank be restored to specialist (SPC), pay grade E-4.
APPLICANT STATES: That when he enlisted in the Washington State Army National Guard he had every intention to serve his country to the best of his ability. His daughter was born on 29 November 1993. He stated that the mother decided to flee to another state with the child against all court orders. In March 1997, the FBI in Reno, Nevada located the mother and child. He was granted full custody of the child and became a full-time parent. He regrets not being able to fulfill his obligation to the National Guard. At the time of the incident, he was in constant contact with his Platoon Sergeant and Company Commander who knew the situation first hand. He requested leave and was granted that leave for personal reasons. In late February 1997, he was notified that he was being discharged for "Non-Participation." He received an "Other than Honorable" discharge which has been recently reversed to an "Honorable" due to these circumstances. He requests that the Board reinstate his rank of SPC/E-4 because this was his rank at the time of the incident.
The applicant submitted a supplemental letter in support of his application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard on 29 August 1990. He was ordered to initial active duty for training (IADT) on 2 November 1990 and completed training as a motor transport operator. He was released from IADT on 8 March 1991 and was transferred back to the Army National Guard.
The applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he was promoted to SPC with an effective date and with a date of rank of 1 November 1993.
Company B, 898th Engineer Battalion, Washington Army National Guard Orders Number 94-04, dated 24 October 1994 administratively reduced the applicant from SPC to private first class (PFC) for inefficiency with an effective date of 10 October 1994 and with a date of rank of 22 July 1991.
A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 10 April 1996, advanced the applicant to SPC, pay grade E-4 with an effective date and with a date of rank of 1 May 1996 under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-200, paragraph 6-5 and 6-20.
Company B, 898th Engineer Battalion, Washington Army National Guard Orders Number 3-3, dated 10 July 1996 administratively reduced the applicant from SPC, pay grade E-4 to PFC, pay grade E-3 for inefficiency and unsatisfactory participation with an effective date of 23 June 1996 and with a date of rank 10 October 1994.
The applicant was reduced from PFC to private (PV2), pay grade E-2 with an effective date of 21 November 1996 and with a date of rank of 7 March 1991 by Company B, 898th Engineer Battalion Orders Number 4-1, dated 21 November 1996, for unsatisfactory participation.
The applicant was discharged from the Army National Guard on 8 March 1997 in the rank of PV2, pay grade E-2 under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200, paragraph 8-27g based on unsatisfactory participation with a general discharge.
The applicant's characterization of service was upgraded to honorable by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 29 May 2002 but the ADRB did not change the reason for separation.
National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the personnel management of enlisted personnel of the Army National Guard (ARNG). Chapter 6 covers promotion and reduction of enlisted personnel in the ARNG. Paragraph 6-44a states that commanders may reduce soldiers for inefficiency. Inefficiency is defined not only as technical incompetence, but also as patterns or acts of conduct demonstrating that the soldier concerned lacks the abilities and qualities required and expected of a soldier of his or her rank and experience. Commanders may consider any act(s) of misconduct, to include conviction by a civil court, record of unexcused absences or unsatisfactory participation (whether or not such acts also result in disciplinary action) as evidence of inefficiency. Authority contained in this paragraph will not be used to reduce soldiers for actions of which they were acquitted as a result of courts-martial proceedings.
NGR 600-200, Table 6-2 states that when the reason for reduction is inefficiency, the date of rank (DOR) will be the same as that previously held in the grade to which reduced. If DOR previously held is unknown, it will be same as latest enlistment date.
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. 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.
2. The Board notes the applicant was administratively reduced twice from SPC to PFC, once for inefficiency and once for inefficiency and unsatisfactory participation.
3. The Board also notes that the applicant was reduced from PFC to PV2, pay grade E-2 on 21 November 1996 for being an unsatisfactory participant and was discharged from the Army National Guard on 8 March 1997 in the rank of PV2, pay grade E-2.
4. Upon review of the evidence, the Board has determined that there is no error or injustice in this case. The Board acknowledges that the ADRB upgraded his character of service to honorable; however, the ADRB did not change the reason for his separation.
5. Based on the governing regulation, the applicant's commander properly reduced the applicant based on inefficiency and/or unsatisfactory participation. Therefore, there is no basis for restoring the applicant's rank to SPC.
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
| CASE ID | AR2003085053 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030724 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.9213 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014998
Nine HHC, AVN BDE, memoranda addressed to the applicant at his home of record and last known address in Waldorf, MD, and sent via certified mail show the applicant failed to attend scheduled unit IDT as follows: Number of Cumulative Date Dates of Unexcused Unexcused Notified Drills Absences Absences 19 March 1997 8-9 March 1997 4 4 28 May 1997 17-18 May 1997 4 8 20 August 1997 9-10 August 1997 4 4 25 September 1997 20-21 September 1997 4 8 14 October 1997 4-5 October 1997 4 12 14 November...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012325
There is no documentation on file in the record to show the applicant submitted a hardship discharge packet in response to this discussion with his unit commander or that he pursued some other resolution of his problems through his chain of command. On 30 August 1996, the applicant's unit commander requested the applicant be separated from the NCARNG under the provisions of Army Regulation 131-91, as an unsatisfactory participant, and recommended the applicant receive a GD. Paragraph 8-27g...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000642
Orders Number 69-2, issued by the NYARNG on 19 December 1986, promoted him to the rank/grade of SGT/E-5 with an effective date of 1 January 1987. Orders Number 087-014, issued by the NYARNG on 28 March 2003, discharged him from the ARNG and assigned him to the Retired Reserve by reason of his early qualification for retired pay at age 60 due to his involuntary medical discharge. The evidence of record shows that the applicant served in the military for more than 20 years, but only...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001249C070205
Department of the Army, Company C, 1st Battalion, 124th Infantry Regiment General Orders Number 97-007, dated 28 April 1997, show that the applicant received another reduction in pay grade to pay grade PFC/E-3 for inefficiency. On 8 October 1999, the applicant was discharged from the ARNG and the United States Army Reserve (USAR). Unless an absence is authorized, a Soldier failing to attend a scheduled drill will be charged with an unexcused absence.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012089
On 16 April 2007, the immediate commander indicated the applicant had missed drills on 3 and 4 February 2007, 9, 10, and 11 March 2007, and 13, 14, and 15 April 2007; and that he (the applicant) was reported in an absent without leave (AWOL) status and had failed to notify the unit that he could not attend or provide an explanation. It appears after having accumulated over 9 unexcused absences, his chain of command initiated separation action against him under the provisions of chapter 13...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015308
The applicant requests correction of his records to show he was transferred to the Retired Reserve at age 60 in the rank/grade of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 instead of private (PV2)/E-2. Commanders may consider any misconduct, to include a record of unexcused absences or unsatisfactory participation, as evidence of inefficiency. The evidence of records shows the applicant held the rank/grade of SSG/E-6 from 1981 through 1989.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018093
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 12 November 1999, the applicant's immediate commander again dispatched a letter of instruction to the applicant informing him that he was absent from scheduled MUTA on 6 November 1999 and 7 November 1999. The record of unsatisfactory participation is correctly filed in his record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001235
The applicant's OMPF is void of any documents or orders that indicate the applicant was ever ordered to active duty for any reason other than annual training or that she ever served a period of active duty for which a DD Form 214 was issued subsequent to her completion of IADT on 27 June 1987. The NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) issued to her upon this discharge shows she held the rank of PV2 and that she had completed a total of 3 years, 2 months, and 4 days of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001943
d. He states he held the rank of SSG for 13 years, which was well over the necessary time for him to retire in the highest pay grade he held (i.e., SSG/E-6). A National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows the applicant was separated from the ARNGUS and UTARNG on 30 March 1992 and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement) under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management),...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003466
The applicant requests correction of his records to show he retired from the Army National Guard (ARNG) in the rank/grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5 instead of specialist (SPC)/E-4. In the case of a person who is entitled to retired pay under section 12731 of this title, the retired pay base is the monthly basic pay, determined at the rates applicable on the date when retired pay is granted, of the highest grade held satisfactorily by the person at any time in the armed forces. As a result, the...