RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           09 SEPTEMBER 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2004100672


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

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Vick                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. James Anderholm               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Linda Simmons                 |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests pay and allowances and retirement points for
training he performed with the Florida Army National Guard (FLARNG) prior
to being an official member of that organization.

2.  The applicant states that the 50th Area Support Group (ASG) S-1 failed
to complete his inprocessing documents initiated in March 2001.  This
oversight was not discovered until January 2002.

      a.  He met with Major "L," the 50th ASG S-1 in March 2001 to process
into the FLARNG.  Major "L" stated that because his previous unit had
placed him in the IRR (Individual Ready Reserve) there would be some
"legwork," but it would not be a problem.  Major "L" encouraged him to
attend the March drill and ensured him that he would be paid even though he
was not official [not assigned or granted Federal recognition with the
FLARNG].  He attended the March drill and was welcomed into the unit.  He
also attended drill in April 2001.  Because of a union strike at his
school, he decided to finish his schooling in Alaska and then return to
Florida.

      b.  In November he contacted Major "D," the new S-1, concerning his
pay, and informed him that he would be returning to Florida in January.
Major "D" informed him that due to the urgency on 11 September 2001, he and
Major "L" did not have a smooth transfer [of responsibilities].  In January
2002 he returned to Homestead and performed a SUTA (Scheduled Unit Training
Assembly – a drill). On 5 January 2002 he discovered that he was never
officially on the books [of the 50th].  In contact with Major "L," that
officer apologized for overlooking the paperwork and stated that he would
work to get him back pay.

      c.  In summary, he states that he was informed by Major "L" to attend
drills and told that he would be paid for those drills.  He never heard
otherwise.  In January 2002 both Major "D" and Major "L" assured him that
they would work to resolve the situation.  To date nothing has been done.

3.  The applicant provides the documents depicted herein.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was on active duty from May 1995 to August 1999, when he
was released from active duty and assigned to the Army Reserve Control
Group (Reinforcement) at St. Louis.

2.  On 16 February 2001 the applicant, then a member of the California Army
National Guard, was discharged from that organization and transferred to
the Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement).  The National Guard Bureau
Form 22E reflecting that information shows that he had served with the
National Guard for 1 year, 5 months, and 4 days.

3.  National Guard Bureau Form 62-E (Application for Federal Recognition as
an Army National Guard Officer or Warrant Officer and Appointment as a
Reserve Commissioned Officer or Warrant Officer of the Army in the Army
National Guard of the United States) shows that he applied for Federal
recognition as a captain in the FLARNG on 17 March 2001.  On 18 March 2001
the applicant signed a hand receipt for certain organizational items of
issue from the 50th ASG Supply.

4.  On 11 April 2001, Major "L" recommended to the Department of Military
Affairs, FLARNG, that the interstate transfer of the applicant be approved.


5.  In an 18 April 2001 e-mail to Major "L" the officer appointments
manager of the FLARNG notified Major "L" that " he needed certain
documents, to include a conditional release from the California Army
National Guard, to complete the applicant's appointment packet.  A
handwritten note on that e-mail indicates that Major "L" informed the
applicant of the above requirements.

6.  In a 5 January 2002 e-mail, a noncommissioned officer (NCO) of the
FLARNG informed another NCO that the applicant had been attending drills
for the last     8 months without pay, that Major "L" was handling his
appointment, and that the records indicated that a NGB Form 62 was not
completed.  She inquired as to the applicant's status and how they could
get him paid for those drills.

7.  On 8 January 2002, in reference to the above e-mail, an NCO queried
Major "D," requesting that the applicant's appointment status be resolved,
and stating that records indicated that action had been initiated to
appoint him [in the FLARNG] in December 2000.  He stated that the latest
correspondence concerning the applicant was an 18 April 2001 e-mail
requesting documents to complete his appointment.  He went on to say that
without a completed          NGB Form 62, a completed oath of office, and
orders, the applicant should not have been attending drills, and there were
no provisions to pay him.  He requested information on his current status,
stated that if he was still assigned to the California Army National Guard,
there was no authority to appoint him without a conditional release, and
stated that he could not perform military duty in the FLARNG without
submitting a complete appointment packet, completing an oath of office, and
being issued orders.

8.  On 29 January 2002 the applicant was reassigned from the Army Reserve
Control Group (Reinforcement) at St. Louis to the FLARNG, effective on
      24 January 2002.

9.  On 20 August 2002 the applicant requested assistance in resolving his
pay issues, provided a matrix showing the drills that he alleges that he
attended, and provided forms attesting to his attendance at drills.  The
forms included a         DA Form 5100-R (Request for Subsistence Payroll
Deduction), dated 24 April 2001, from HHC, 50th ASG, showing that the
applicant received meals on 7 and 8 April 2001; and three TAG AK (The
Adjutant General Alaska?) 619 (Training Authorization/Performance
Certificate) showing he performed training apparently in June, August, and
October 2001.  Also shown is a unit attendance pay report for the 50th ASG
which indicates in an handwritten entry that the applicant performed drill
on 5 January 2002.

10.  In response to his inquiries concerning his pay, on 26 October 2002,
Major "D" informed the applicant that he had reviewed the matrix that he
provided, and concluded that he had been paid for each drill that he
attended or for which he submitted documentation.  He informed the
applicant that he was assigned to the 50th ASG on 24 January 2002, and that
Federal recognition orders from the National Guard Bureau were also dated
24 January 2002.  He stated that the applicant had signed the direct
deposit sign-up form on 10 January 2002 and it was certified on 23 January
2002.  He stated that the applicant could not have been paid for the months
of March 2001 to December 2001 as stated in his matrix.  Major "D" provided
him information on the dates provided by his matrix, and recommended that
the applicant research his records, stating that if he did receive pay, it
was not from the FLARNG.  Major "D" stated that, according to his records,
the applicant was paid for every drill that he attended.

11.  On 7 December 2002 the applicant was transferred to a unit of the Air
National Guard in Anchorage, Alaska.

12.  In processing this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from a
project officer of the Army National Guards Affairs Office in St. Louis.
That officer indicated that individuals of the FLARNG recommended that the
applicant contact Major "L" in order to obtain the necessary form to
substantiate attendance at drills.  She also stated that the California
Army National Guard needed to correct the orders transferring the applicant
into the Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) and show that he was
transferred to the FLARNG, so that the applicant could be authorized back
pay.  She stated that the applicant could not attend training while
assigned to the IRR (Individual Ready Reserve).

13.  On 14 March 2004 a copy of the advisory opinion was furnished the
applicant for his information and possible rebuttal.  He failed to respond.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1. The evidence shows that the applicant did apply for an appointment in
the FLARNG – on 17 March 2001, and that he was recommended by an official
of the 50th ASG that an interstate transfer be approved; however, at that
time he had already been transferred by the California Army National Guard
to the Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) at St. Louis;
consequently, an interstate transfer could not be effected.

2.  A request was made in mid April 2001 to obtain the documents needed to
complete the applicant's appointment packet.  There is evidence that a plea
was made to the applicant to provide or obtain the necessary documents.
Whether or not he acted upon that request, or even received the request, is
unknown.  What is known is that the applicant was not assigned to the
FLARNG until almost a year later, on 24 January 2002.  While there is an
obvious disconnect concerning the applicant's submission of his packet and
his ultimate appointment and assignment to the FLARNG, the reasons thereof
are not known.

3.  There may have been some error or injustice to the applicant concerning
his assignment to the FLARNG.  Nevertheless, there is no evidence that
anyone told him to attend drills prior to his assignment to the 50th ASG or
that he would be paid for those drills, notwithstanding his contention.

4.  Furthermore, the evidence as to whether or not he attended drills with
the 50th ASG is inconclusive.  Noted is the e-mail from an NCO of the
FLARNG stating that the applicant had been attending drills for the last 8
months without pay.  Also noted, however, that some of the documents that
he submits attesting to his drill performance appear to show that he
attended training in Alaska.  Furthermore, a  Major "D" indicated that he
had reviewed the records and concluded that the applicant had been paid for
every drill where there was a record of his attendance.

5.  The advisory opinion indicates that the applicant has to take certain
steps in order for him to receive pay for the drills he alleges to have
attended.

6.   There is insufficient evidence to show that he attended drills with
the FLARNG during the periods requested or that he was authorized to attend
drills.  Consequently, his request cannot be granted.

7.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing
argument in support of his request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JV___  ___JA___  ___LS __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.





            _____James Vick_________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004100672                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040909                                |
|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.       |128.00                                  |
|2.                      |135.02                                  |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]