RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        12 December 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060006658


      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             |
|     |Ms. Joyce A. Wright               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Allen L. Raub                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Frank C. Jones                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Qawiy A. Sabree               |     |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, in effect, that item 4a (Grade, Rate, or Rank),
of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)),
be corrected to show the entry "PV2" (Private E-2), instead of the entry
"PV1" (Private), and item 4b (Pay Grade), to show the entry "E2," instead
of "E1."

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his pay grade on his DD Form 214
is incorrect and it reads pay grade, E-1; however, it should state a pay
grade
of E-2.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 and several documents
from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 25 October 2002, the date of his discharge.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 4 May 2006.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the U. S. Army Reserve
(USAR) Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on 17 November 2000, in pay grade E-2,
for 8 years.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 January 2001.  The
applicant successfully completed basic combat training and advanced
individual training (AIT) at Fort Knox, Kentucky.  On completion of his
advanced training, he was awarded the military occupational specialty
(MOS), 19D, Cavalry Scout.  He was advanced to pay grade E-3 with an
effective date and date of rank (DOR) of 23 April 2001.




4.  On 24 August 2001, the applicant was punished under Article 15, Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for violation of a lawful general
regulation, by wrongfully consuming alcoholic beverages and for wrongfully
and falsely altering an identification card.  His punishment consisted of a
reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of pay, and 14 days restriction and
extra duty.

5.  On 10 December 2001, the applicant was punished under Article 15, UCMJ,
for wrongfully consuming alcoholic beverages, while under the legal age,
and for being drunk and disorderly.   His punishment consisted of a
forfeiture of pay and 45 days restriction and extra duty.

6.  On 14 June 2002, the applicant was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for
having weapon ammunition and alcohol in his possession.  His punishment
consisted of 14 days restriction and extra duty.

7.  On 4 September 2002, the Commander, Company A, Operations Group,
National Training Center (NTC) and Fort Irwin, prepared a Memorandum for
Record, Subject:  Correction of UCMJ Action.  The commander stated that the
following record of proceedings for company grade Article 15, on 22 August
2001, for the applicant was incorrect.  The correct rank should have been
PFC/E-3 and the reduction should have been to PV2/E-2.  This was the
applicant's first company grade Article 15.  His record shows that he had
been advanced to the rank of PFC/E-3 effective 23 April 2001.

8.  On 5 September 2002, the Commander, Operations Group, NTC and Fort
Irwin, prepared a Memorandum for Record, Subject:  Correction of Rank.  The
commander stated that the applicant was promoted upon completion of AIT to
PFC/E-3 on 23 April 2001.  The applicant received a company grade Article
15 on 22 August 2001.  The rank on the Article 15 should have read PFC/E-3
and punishment should have read reduction to pay grade E-2.  The applicant
received a Field Grade Article 15, on 21 November 2001.  The rank should
have read PV2/E-2.  The Commander of Operations Group (a Colonel)
administered the punishment to the applicant with the incorrect rank
presented.  No rank was officially taken for his punishment.  Clerical
errors, by legal personnel, were not noticed by the applicant's previous
chain of command.  The applicant's effective DOR should be 23 August 2001
as a PV2/E-2.





9.  On 26 September 2002, the applicant's commander notified the applicant
he was initiating action to separate him from service, under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for patterns of misconduct.
He based his recommendation on his [the applicant's] disciplinary actions.
He indicated he was recommending that he receive a general discharge (GD).
On the same day, the applicant's commander submitted his recommendation to
separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14-12b.

10.  The applicant acknowledged receipt and consulted with counsel.  He
waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.


11.  The separation authority approved the recommendation for the
applicant's discharge on 5 October 2002 and directed that he be issued a
GD.  The applicant was discharged on 25 October 2002, in the pay grade of E-
1.  He had a total of 1 year, 9 months, and 24 days of creditable service.

12.  Item 4a (Grade, Rate, or Rank), of his DD Form 214, shows the entry
"PV1," item 4b (Pay Grade) shows the entry "E1," and item 12h (Effective
Date of Pay Grade) shows the entry "2001 08 24" (24 August 2001).

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and
prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific
categories include minor
disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious
offense, abuse of illegal drugs, and convictions by civil authorities. 
Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly
established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to
succeed.  A discharge under other 
than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged
under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a general
discharge if
such is merited by the Soldier's overall record.  Only a general court-
martial convening authority may approve an honorable discharge or delegate
approval authority for an honorable discharge under this provision of
regulation.

14.  Army Regulation 635-5 provides instructions for the preparation of the
        DD Form 214.  It states, in pertinent part, that item 4a and 4b
will be completed to show the active duty grade or rank and pay grade at
the time of separation.  It also states that item 12h (Effective Date of
Pay Grade) will be completed to show the effective date of promotion to the
current pay grade from the most recent promotion order or reduction
instrument.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of records shows that the applicant was advanced to pay
grade E-3 effective 23 April 2001.  He received a CG Article 15 on
24 August 2001, which incorrectly shows his rank as PV2.  He was reduced to
pay grade E-1, by this Article 15.

2.  The evidence show that the record of proceedings, for the applicant's
CG Article 15, prepared on 24 August 2001 was incorrect.  The correct rank
shown should have been PFC/E-3.  The reduction should have been to PV2/E-2
instead of PVT/E-1.

3.  Based on the information provided by the Commander, NTC, it is
apparent, that a clerical error did occur and that it was the command's
intention to reduce the individual only one pay grade.  Therefore it would
be appropriate, as a matter of fairness and equity, to correct his DD Form
214 to show that he was discharged in the rank and pay grade of PV2/E-2.
Therefore, he is entitled to correction of item 4a to show the entry "PV2"
and item 4b to show the entry "E2," of his DD Form 214.

BOARD VOTE:

__ALR __  __FCJ___  _QAS___  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION













BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for relief and to excuse failure to timely file.  As a
result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the
individual concerned be corrected:

      a.  by showing the entry "PV2" in item 4a (Grade/Rate or Rank) of his
DD Form 214; and

      b.  by showing the entry "E2" in item 4b (Pay Grade) of his DD Form
214.




                                  ____Allen L. Raub ______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060006658                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061212                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20021025                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, chapter 14-12b              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |100                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |

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