RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  6 March 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060007478 


	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. Gerard W. Schwartz

Acting Director

Mr. G. E. Vandenberg

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. James E. Anderholm

Chairperson

Mr. Scott W. Faught

Member

Mr. Roland S. Venable

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 the correspondence and orders issued her in 2003 be corrected to show her rank as a staff sergeant (SSG).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that following her relocation to Georgia in 2001 she attempted to get a different TPU (Troop Program Unit) assignment but was unable to do so.  Since she did not locate any available TPU assignments, she was involuntarily transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement).  In 2003, while she was attempting to transfer from the Control Group (Reinforcement) to a TPU, she received copies of orders that referred to her as a "SGT" (sergeant).  She attempted to get her rank corrected but due to a reorganization of her former unit she no longer had any contacts to assist her.  She indicates that the orders transferring her to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) are "untrue" and that she had no input into them. 

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her 13 April 1999 promotion order.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The records show the applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve (USAR) on 20 October 1989 and served on initial active duty for training (IADT) from 29 May 1990 through 15 September 1990.

2.  Upon completion of her period of IADT she transferred back to her USAR TPU (Troop Program Unit) in Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

3.  Headquarters and Headquarters Command, (HHC) 412th Engineer Command, Vicksburg, Mississippi Orders A 103-2, dated 13 April 1999, promoted the applicant to the rank of staff sergeant (pay grade E-6) effective 1 May 1999.

4.  The NCOER (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report), for the period September 1998 through August 1999, lists her rank as a SGT with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 May 1999.  

5.  The applicant reenlisted on 2 August 2000 in pay grade E-6 for six years. 

6.  An NCOER for the period December 1997 through August 1998 lists her rank as "E-5" with a DOR of 8 July 1997.  This NCOER appears to have been completed and signed on 29 January 2001.

7.  The NCOER prepared for the period of September 1999 through April 2000 lists her as SSG with a DOR of 1 May 1999.  

8.  On 24 May 2001, HHC, 412th Engineer Command, Vicksburg, Mississippi prepared two sets of orders related to the applicant.  Orders 01-144-01 reduced the applicant to the rank of SGT effective 23 May 2001 under the provisions of Army Regulation 140-158, paragraph 7-12 (d-g).  Orders 01-144-002 released her from her TPU assignment and transferred her to the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPC), St. Louis, Missouri, Control Group (Reinforcement) as an unsatisfactory participant, in the rank of SSG.  These orders were sent to her residence in Georgia.

9.  The NCOER prepared for the period May 2000 through April 2001 lists her as an SSG with a DOR of 1 May 1999.  The NCOER rates her as successful in all categories and fully capable overall.  It is noted that this NCOER was signed on 4 August 2001, four months after the end of her reporting period and three months after she was reduced and transferred to the Control Group (Reinforcement) for unsatisfactory performance.

10.  There are no NCOERs or any other documentation for the period between 24 May 2001 and 18 January 2003.

11.  On 18 January 2003 ARPC Orders M-01-300555 ordered the applicant to active duty from the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) under the mobilization directives for Operation Enduring Freedom.  These orders were amended on several occasions and revoked on 3 June 2003.  All of the correspondence and orders issued during this period list her rank as a SGT and was sent to addresses in Mississippi.  

12.  On 20 June 2003 the applicant was reassigned from the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) to the 90th Regional Readiness Command, Camp Pike, North Little Rock, Arkansas; in the rank of SGT.

13.  The NCOERs for the periods July 2003 through June 2004, July 2004 through December 2004, and January 2005 through June 2006 list her as a SGT with a DOR of 23 May 2001.  

14.  The only DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) of record lists her date of promotion to SGT as 8 July 1997 and to SSG as 1 May 1999.  The last entry on this form appears to have been the applicant's review of the form on 10 July 1999.  
15.  Army Regulation 15–185 (Boards, Commissions, and Committees - Army Board for Correction of Military Records)(ABCMR), paragraph 2–9 (Burden of Proof) states that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.  This regulation states, in effect that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the ABCMR must presume that all actions taken by the military were proper.  

16.  Army Regulation 140-10 (Assignments, Attachments, Details, and Transfers), paragraph 4-15 (Involuntary reassignment for unsatisfactory participation) states that a TPU Soldier who has completed their initial enlisted training, been awarded an MOS, and are not within 3 months of ETS, who fails to participate satisfactorily may be reassigned to the appropriate control group of the IRR.  Involuntary reassignment is discretionary and may be made in lieu of discharge proceedings per Army Regulation 135-178, chapter 13, when it is determined to be in the best interest of the Army. 

17.  Army Regulation 135-91 (Service Obligations, Methods of Fulfillment, Participation Requirements, and Enforcement Procedures), in pertinent part, defines an unsatisfactory participant as member of a unit or the USAR Control Group who fails to participate as outlined in chapter 4 of this regulation.  

	a.  Chapter 4, governs absences from Ready Reserve training, lists reasons for absences, who may excuse or grant exceptions to unexcused absences, basis for approval or disapproval, and the documentation required.  

	b.  Paragraph 4-10 states that employment conflicts, overtime, schooling, and loss of income are not normally considered valid reasons for absence from training.

	c.  Paragraph 4-12 states an unexcused absence is any absence not covered in sections II and IV of this regulation.  A Soldiers will be charged with unsatisfactory participation when without proper authority they accrue in any one-year period a total of nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled inactive duty training (IDT)s or if they fail to obtain a unit of assignment during a leave of absence granted per section IV. 

	d.  Paragraph 4-18 (Change of address) states that enlisted Soldiers who move to an area too distant to continue participating with their unit will be reassigned.  Soldiers who cannot be assigned through the USAR - REQUEST System will be reassigned/ transferred to the IRR.  Those who cannot be reassigned and those who do not give proper notice of relocation will be granted a 90-day leave of absence.  During a leave of absence, the Soldier remains assigned to their unit. 

	e.  Paragraph 4-24 states that Soldiers who are not assigned or enlisted in another unit by the 95th day after the effective date of the leave of absence will be reassigned/transferred to the IRR. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was promoted to SSG on 1 May 1999.  She reenlisted in this rank in 2000 and served successfully as a SSG as denoted by her 2000 and 2001 NCOERs.

2.  However, on 24 May 2001 the applicant was reduced to SGT and in a second order, of the same date, was reassigned to the IRR.  The fact that the transfer order lists her as a SSG not a SGT does not negate either action.

3.  If the applicant was unable to meet her Reserve drilling obligation due to a geographical location problem, her involuntary transfer to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) for unsatisfactory performance was proper.  The applicant has not provided any documentation to show that the reduction was improper.

4.  With the 2001 reduction, the applicant was properly referred to as a SGT on the mobilization orders in 2003. 

5.  Since there is insufficient documentation to determine exactly what did or did not happen at the time of her 2001 transfer to the IRR, the Board must apply the presumption of administrative regularity and presume that there was proper actions undertaken and no relief is warranted


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JEA ___  __SWF _  __RSV __  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 E. Anderholm_____
          CHAIRPERSON


INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060007478
SUFFIX

RECON
 
DATE BOARDED
20070306 
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
. . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
133
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.