RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  6 September 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070003219 


	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.  


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Mr. John J. Wendland, Jr.

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Linda D. Simmons

Chairperson

Mr. Frank C. Jones

Member

Ms. Carmen Duncan

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, revocation of the action reducing her to the rank of sergeant (SGT)/pay grade E-5, removal of documents from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) that are related to her reduction in grade, and reinstatement of her selection as a Warrant Officer Candidate (WOC) so that she may reach her full potential and further benefit the Army.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was mobilized in February 2006, incurred medical issues while performing duty, and sought medical attention for both her feet and her breathing problems.  She also states, in effect, as a result of seeking medical care, she was recommended for early release from active duty (REFRAD) and received an irregular Article 15.  She further states that in May 2006 she was selected as a WOC, but this was put in jeopardy when she was directed to report to the mobilization station (Fort Benning, Georgia) to demobilize.  She adds that when the request for early REFRAD failed, she was directed to report back to Fort McPherson, Georgia, to finish her medical care and treatment.  She states that she departed Fort Benning on 11 August 2006 and unit personnel were aware she was returning to home station to have surgery, followed by a period of convalescent leave, and then return to Fort Benning for demobilization.

     a.  The applicant states that she had medical appointments during the week of 14-17 August 2006, a pre-operative appointment on 18 August 2006 prior to her scheduled surgery on 22 August 2006, and an excuse from the medical doctor that covered her absence from 18-21 August 2006.

     b.  The applicant states she reported her status when she arrived at Fort McPherson on the evening of 18 August 2006.  Two noncommissioned officers (NCO) from the U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) Augmentation Unit (FAU) then came to her house and handed her a statement with instructions for her to call Major J______, which she did while in the presence of the two NCOs.  The applicant states that she was instructed to report back to Fort Benning to have her DA Form 31 (Request and Authority for Leave) pass signed that evening.  The applicant states that, at the time, she was heavily medicated and instead opted to have her sister drive her to Fort McPherson to have the DA Form 31 signed the next morning; thereby acknowledging that she was not absent without leave (AWOL), as was being contended.  The applicant acknowledges, in effect, that she is not certain about the exact order of events after this point.


     c.  The applicant adds, in effect, there was questionable protocol concerning the Article 15 that she received.  She adds that her physical profile prohibited her from walking, jumping, formations, and physical training and adds that this is important because the Article 15 proceedings state that she missed formation on 19 August 2006.

     d.  The applicant also states, in effect, that the administrative procedures and prescribed notifications (either to her or her next of kin) were not made regarding her supposed period of AWOL; nonetheless, her unit gave her an Article 15.  She maintains that she followed Army regulations concerning her convalescent leave and forwarded the request to her commander, but final action was not taken (approving or disapproving the leave) and she was never notified of the disposition.  The applicant further states she was on medication, had a profile, and was using crutches, but was still required to report to her unit.  However, once the commander realized she was incapacitated, he granted her convalescent leave.  Despite this fact, the commander still presented the Article 15, which she signed feeling confident that he would rule favorably and dismiss the charges.  The applicant concludes by stating that she presented evidence in her defense, but the commander issued the Article 15.  Her REFRAD was subsequently approved, she was reduced to the rank of SGT, time lost was recorded on her DD Form 214, and she was then notified of her release as a selectee for WOC school.

3.  The applicant provides numerous documents assembled at six tabs (Tabs
A–F), which she lists on a separate page (i.e., Supporting Documents Information) that accompanied her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military service records show she enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) and was ordered to active duty on 18 March 1987.  Upon completion of basic combat training and advanced individual training, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 71L (Administrative Specialist), which was later designated MOS 42L (Administrative Specialist).  On 1 August 1995, she was promoted to staff sergeant (SSG)/pay grade E-6.

2.  Headquarters, 81st Regional Readiness Command, Birmingham, Alabama, Orders 06-032-00012, dated 1 February 2006, ordered the applicant to active duty as a member of her Reserve Component unit for a period of 365 days.


3.  Headquarters, U.S. Army Infantry Center, Fort Benning, Georgia, Permanent Orders F0126, dated 7 February 2006, ordered the applicant, as a member of the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, Information (ODSCI), FORSCOM Support Detachment 39, Fort McPherson, Georgia, to deploy to the mobilization station in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, effective 2 February 2006.  These orders also state, in pertinent part, “[d]uring period of deployment, gaining/ deployed unit commander (Benning CONUS Replacement Center) has responsibility for personnel service support to include awards and decorations, UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice], and all other forms of personnel and legal administration support, except Reserve Component promotion authority.”

4.  The applicant's military service records contain a DA Form 2166-8 (NCO Evaluation Report) covering the period February 2006 through June 2006. This document shows, in pertinent part, that the applicant was assigned to the FORSCOM Augmentation Unit (FAU), Fort McPherson, Georgia, and that her parent unit was the 81st Regional Readiness Command, Troop Program Unit (TPU).  This document also shows that the applicant was assigned as an Administrative Assistant (MOS 42L2O) in the G4 Technology Office, Office of the FORSCOM Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, during the period covered by the report.  Part IV (Army Values/Attributes/Skills/Actions) of this document shows, in pertinent part, that the applicant’s rater commented that the applicant was “consistently late for duty” and “failed to keep [her] supervisor informed of status.” The rater also commented that the applicant, “leaves assigned place of duty to take care of personal matters without informing supervisor;” was a “marginal performer, requires constant supervision;” was “absent from assigned place of duty at least three times during this rating period without proper authorization;” and “late for work on numerous occasions and fails to respond to counseling.”

5.  The applicant’s Total Army Personnel Data Base (TAPDB) electronic record, accessible via the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (USA HRC) Integrated Web Services (IWS) portal contains, in pertinent part, a Transaction History that documents the inquiries the applicant has initiated to the USA HRC.  The TAPDB Transaction History shows that on 3 August 2006 she initiated the first of several inquiries for assistance concerning a request for early release from active duty due to a decrease in operational requirements in the FORSCOM G-4.  The TAPDB Transaction History also shows that on 6 September 2006, the applicant initiated an inquiry about “getting attached to another unit while mobilized.”  This transaction history indicates, in pertinent part, “[S]oldier states that she is assigned to a detachment at Fort McPherson, and they have told her to [go] find some work.  She has found a unit that would like [her] to work for them (during the) balance of her mobilization.”  

6.  The applicant's military service records contain a copy of a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 14 September 2006. This document shows, in pertinent part, that on 8 September 2006, the colonel in command of the 641st Area Support Group (ASG), Mobilization Troop Command (MTC), Fort Benning, Georgia, notified the applicant of his intent to impose non-judicial punishment upon her for, on or about 19 August 2006, without authority, absenting herself from her unit at which she was required to be, to wit:  0800 formation, 19 August 2006, located at 641st ASG (MTC), Building 2819, Fort Benning, Georgia, and did remain so absent until 1300 hours on 8 September 2006.  On 13 September 2006, the applicant affixed her signature in Item 3 of the document indicating she did not demand trial by court-martial; that she requested a closed hearing; a person to speak in her behalf was not requested; however, matters in defense, mitigation, and/or extenuation would be presented in person and were also attached.  Following a closed hearing where all matters presented in defense, mitigation, and/or extenuation were considered, the commander affixed his signature in Item 4 of the document directing the applicant's reduction to SGT/E5; forfeiture of $750.00 for 2 months (suspended for 2 months); and restriction for 30 days (suspended for 1 month).  Item 5 of this document also shows that the commander directed that the DA Form 2627 be filed in the restricted section of the applicant's OMPF.  The applicant signed the document in Item 7 and also indicated with her initials that she did not appeal the Article 15.  This document is filed in the restricted section of the applicant’s OMPF.

7.  The applicant's military service records contain a copy of Headquarters,
81st Regional Readiness Command, Birmingham, Alabama, Orders 06-297-00077, dated 24 October 2006.  This document shows that the applicant was reduced in rank from SSG to SGT, with a date of rank and effective date of
14 September 2006.

8.  The applicant's military service records contain a copy of Headquarters,
U.S. Infantry Center, Fort Benning, Georgia, Orders 286-2219, dated 13 October 2006.  These orders show that the applicant was REFRAD, effective 2 November 2006, and assigned to the FORSCOM Augmentation Unit, Detachment 39, Fort McPherson, Georgia.

9.  The applicant's military service records contain a copy of a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), with an effective date of
2 November 2006.  Item 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) contains the entry “SSG”; Item 4b (Pay Grade) contains the entry E-6”; and Item 12 (Record of Service), block h (Effective Date of Pay Grade) contains the entry “1987 03 18.”  Item 29 (Dates of Time Lost During This Period) contains the entry, “UNDER 10 USC 
972: 20060820-20060907.”  The DD Form 214 shows that the applicant was honorably REFRAD based upon completion of required active service.  This document also shows that the applicant’s last duty assignment was ODCSI FORSCOM Support Detachment (FORSCOM).

10.  In support of her request, the applicant provides documents identified on the Supporting Documents Information page and assembled at Tabs A – F, as follows.

     a.  Tab A contains documents pertaining to the applicant’s duties, training, and achievements while mobilized; notification of her selection as a WOC, along with guidance for both during and upon her REFRAD; documentation concerning her medical appointments for 14 – 17 August 2006; departure and arrival transactions for 9 August 2006; and a redeployment packet.

     b.  Tab B includes a copy of the applicant’s DA Form 31 (Request and Authority for Leave), dated 7 August 2006, that indicates a pass was approved based on the applicant’s medical appointment in Forest Park, Georgia; however, Item 10 (Dates) does not contain the date(s) for the pass.  This Tab also includes medical documents completed on 9 and 10 August 2006; the DA Form 2627, dated 14 September 2006; a memorandum, dated 8 September 2006, a
DA Form 31, dated 14 September 2006, authorizing convalescent leave from
15 September 2006 to 21 September 2006; a DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), dated 25 July 2006, subject: Event Oriented Counseling, signed by the applicant and Major Teresa W_____ on 25 July 2006; 2 DA Forms 268 (Report To Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG)), dated 29 August 2006 and 9 January 2007, initiating and removing a flag, respectively; and
2 Enlisted Record Briefs, dated 29 August 2006 and 3 November 2006.

     c.  Tab C includes a copy of the applicant’s DA Form 31, dated 18 August 2006, that indicates a pass was requested by the applicant, but was not approved; that the applicant was signed in at 0800 hours, 19 August 2006, at Fort McPherson, Georgia; and Item 17 (Remarks) contains the entry, “[S]oldier status is undetermined, either Med-hold or demobilizing.  Pass form submitted for the purposes of such.”  Also included is a Certificate of Returning to Work/ School, dated 18 August 2006, that shows the applicant had an office visit that day and was scheduled for a medical procedure on 22 August 2006; 4 DA Forms 3349 (Physical Profiles), dated 25 July 2006, 9 August 2006, 19 September 2006, and 31 October 2006.  The DA Form 3349, dated 25 July 2006, shows she was issued a temporary profile that states, in pertinent part, ”[n]o marching, jumping, formations.  No PT [physical training].  Must be reevaluated at end of
4 weeks period.”  The applicant also provides a DA Form 3349, dated 9 August 2006, that does not include a restriction or limitation related to “formations” nor do the DA Forms 3349, dated 19 September 2006 and 31 October 2006.  The DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), dated 8 September 2006, shows, in pertinent part, that on 18 August 2006, the applicant’s superior officer telephonically disapproved her request for pass and ordered her to return to Fort Benning; however, this document shows the applicant reported to Fort McPherson and was signed in on 19 August 2006.  The email message string, initiated on
23 June 2006, shows, in pertinent part, that the applicant’s REFRAD was directed on 12 July 2006.

     d.  Tab D contains documents pertaining to the applicant’s REFRAD, along with an email message string pertaining to the applicant’s REFRAD processing and efforts to contact the applicant and her duty status beginning 18 August 2006.

     e.  Tab E contains documents that include a copy of the applicant’s email message to the brigadier general serving as Director, Mobilization (FORSCOM Augmentation Unit), dated 30 July 2006, expressing her desire “for the harassment to end; to peacefully recover from this surgery; finish this initial mobilization by reassignment to Bravo Med Hold Company (already cleared with them) effective the day after this con leave ends (4 Aug) and move on with my military endeavors.”  She also provides an email message string and statement, dated 6 November 2006, expressing her concerns and inquiring into the process of seeking redress concerning the administrative procedures related to her duty status, Article 15, possible unauthorized changes and annotations to her records, early REFRAD, and reduction in rank.

     f.  Tab F contains documents pertaining to the applicant’s medical treatment from 6 June 2006 through 3 October 2006; 2 DA Forms 2173 (Statements of Medical Examination and Duty Status), dated 13 October 2006; and pages
10 - 12 of Local Airtime, Long Distance and International Charges that, in pertinent part, document telephone calls made on 17 and 18 August 2006.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-2 (Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions (Flags)) provides the principles and standards for the Department of the Army to operate a system to guard against the accidental execution of specified favorable personnel actions for Soldiers not in good standing.  This Army regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a separate flag will be initiated for each investigation, incident, or action and to remove the flag when the Soldier is released without charges, charges are dropped, or punishment is completed.

12.  Army Regulation 140-158 (Army Reserve - Enlisted Personnel Classification, Promotion, and Reduction) prescribes policy and procedures governing the classification, advancement, promotion, reduction, and grade restoration of applicable USAR Soldiers.  Chapter 7 (Reductions and Restorations), paragraph 7-2 (Reduction authority), states, in pertinent part, that “[c]entralized promotion authority throughout this regulation does not divest commanders of the authority to reduce personnel for inefficiency or conviction by civil court.  However, reduction for misconduct under UCMJ, Article 15 (Army Regulation 27-10), is not authorized for Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Soldiers in the rank of sergeant first class (SFC) through sergeant major (SGM) and all other Soldiers SFC through SGM.”  This document further shows that the administrative reduction authority for attached or assigned Soldiers (i.e., SGT and SSG) is delegated to field grade commanders of an organization authorized a commander in the grade of lieutenant colonel or higher.

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/ Records) provides policies, operating tasks, and steps governing the OMPF.  This document states that only those documents listed in Table 2-1 and Table
2-2 are authorized for filing in the OMPF.  Depending on the purpose, documents will be filed in the OMPF in one of three sections:  performance, service, or restricted.  This Army regulation also instructs, in pertinent part, that once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed or moved to another part of the OMPF, unless directed by appropriate authority.

14.  Table 2-1 (Composition of the OMPF) of Army Regulation 600-8-104 shows that the DA Form 2627 is filed in either the performance or restricted section of the OMPF, as directed by Item 5 of the DA Form 2627.

15.  Paragraph 2-3 (Composition of the OMPF) of Army Regulation 600-8-104 provides, in pertinent part, that the restricted section of the OMPF is used for historical data that may normally be improper for viewing by selection boards or career managers.  The release of information on this section is controlled.  It will not be released without written approval from the Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (i.e., for enlisted Soldiers, formerly designated as Headquarters, U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center) or the Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) selection board proponent.  This paragraph also provides that documents in the restricted section of the OMPF are those that must be permanently kept to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluation periods; show corrections to other parts of the OMPF; record investigation reports and appellate actions; and protect the interest of the Soldier and the Army.
16.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files, ensure that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files, and ensure that the best interests of both the Army and the Soldiers are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files. 

17.  Chapter 7 of Army Regulation 600-37 provides the policies and procedures for appeals and petitions for removal of unfavorable information from the OMPF. Paragraph 7-2 of this regulation states that once an official document has been properly filed in the OMPF, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority.  Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF. 

18.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  The regulation provides 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends, in effect, that the action reducing her to the grade of SGT (E-5) and all documents that are related to her reduction in grade should be removed from her OMPF.  She also contends, in effect, that her selection as a WOC should be reinstated.

2.  The evidence of record shows that after being ordered to active duty in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, the applicant demonstrated a pattern of being late for duty, failed to keep her supervisor informed of her status, left her assigned place of duty to take care of personal matters without informing her supervisor, and was absent from her assigned place of duty at least three times without proper authorization during the period February 2006 through July 2006.  

3.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was undergoing medical treatment and care during the time period under review (i.e., August – September 2006).  The evidence of record also shows that the DA Form 31, dated 7 August 

2006, fails to specify the dates for the period of this pass.  In addition, the
DA Form 31, dated 18 August 2006, for the period from 18 August 2006 to
21 August 2006, fails to show that the pass was signed by the approving authority.  Moreover, the applicant does not provide any documentary evidence showing she had an excuse from a medical doctor that covered her absence during the period 18 - 21 August 2006.  Thus, the applicant fails to provide sufficient evidence to show that she was authorized to be on pass during the period 18 -21 August 2006.  In fact, the DA Form 31 provided by the applicant indicates that at 0800 hours on 19 August 2006, the applicant’s duty status was “undetermined” and that the DA Form 31 was submitted and annotated for the purpose of documenting this fact.  Therefore, the applicant fails to provide sufficient evidence to show she was not AWOL at 0800 hours on 19 August 2006.

4.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was issued a DA Form 3349 on 25 July 2006, which, in pertinent part, indicated “no marching, jumping or formations.”  The applicant contends, in effect, that this prohibited her from being at ‘formations;’ however, there is no evidence that the applicant was prohibited from reporting at the designated time, date, and place that a formation was ordered to occur (e.g., 0800 hours, 19 August 2006).  In fact, this DA Form 3349, also states “no prolonged standing (more than 15 minutes at a time)” and serves to offer functional limitations concerning the individual’s physical capabilities.  However, the physical profile does not exempt or prohibit the Soldier from reporting to the designated place of a formation on the date and time ordered.  Moreover, the DA Form 2627 (Article 15) shows that the applicant’s misconduct was based upon “absenting yourself from your unit at which you were required to be, to wit: 0800 formation, 19 Aug 06,…”  The DA Form 2627 offers no evidence that the applicant was required to be in (emphasis added) formation, merely that she was required to be at her unit (emphasis added) for the formation on
19 August 2006.  More importantly, though, is the fact that the applicant was issued a DA Form 3359 on 9 August 2006, which, therefore, superseded the
DA Form 3349, dated 25 July 2006, and was in effect on 19 August 2006
(i.e., the date of the formation in question); and this document contains no reference to “formations.”  Thus, the applicant’s assertion that the DA Form 3349 proves the Article 15 is without basis because her “profile for this time period prohibited [her] from walking, jumping, ‘formations’, no PT” is clearly without merit.  Moreover, the applicant fails to adequately address the remaining period of her unauthorized absence (i.e., through 7 September 2006).  Therefore, the applicant provides insufficient evidence to show the DA Form 2627 is untrue or unjust and that it should be removed from her military service records.


5.  The evidence of record shows the applicant holds MOS 42L (Administrative Specialist).  In this regard, the evidence of record includes, in pertinent part, the applicant’s statement, “[s]o, from 23 Aug to 23 Sep, I thought I was on conv leave.”  It is reasonable to conclude that a noncommissioned officer of the applicant’s years of service, rank, and MOS (in particular) would be aware of the documentation necessary to substantiate authorization of convalescent leave.  However, despite this fact, the applicant fails to provide a copy of an approved DA Form 31, orders, or any other documentary evidence showing she was authorized convalescent leave during the period 23 August 2006 through
14 September 2006.  The applicant does provide an approved DA Form 31 for convalescent leave for the period from 15 September 2006 to 21 September 2006; however, this document is not pertinent to the time period that is at issue and under review.

6.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant received a Field Grade Article 15 for absenting herself from her unit from 0800 hours, 19 August 2006, and remaining absent until 1300 hours on 8 September 2006.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was notified of the 641st ASG MTC commander’s intent to handle the offense in question under the provisions of Article 15.  After being afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel, the applicant elected not to demand a trial by court-martial and chose to have her case disposed of through Article 15 proceedings at a closed hearing with the commander.  The evidence of record further shows that subsequent to the hearing, at which the applicant presented matters of defense, mitigation, and extenuation, nonjudicial punishment was imposed for the applicant’s violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ.  The applicant did not appeal the nonjudicial action, the commander directed the punishment be effected, and the DA Form 2627 filed in the restricted fiche
(i.e., section) of the applicant's OMPF.  It is not clear why the applicant did not appeal the Article 15 when the commander did not dismiss the charges against her after presenting matters in her defense, as she asserts was her expectation concerning the Article 15 proceedings.  Nonetheless, the applicant provides insufficient evidence to show that the DA Form 2627 is untrue or unjust. Therefore, the DA Form 2627 is deemed true and accurate and properly filed in the applicant's OMPF.

7.  The evidence of record shows that orders directing the applicant’s deployment state that, “[d]uring period of deployment, gaining/deployed unit commander (Benning CONUS Replacement Center) has responsibility for personnel service support to include awards and decorations, UCMJ (emphasis added), and all other forms of personnel and legal administration support, except Reserve 

Component promotion authority.”  The evidence of record also shows that the governing Army regulation provides administrative reduction authority (emphasis added) for attached or assigned Soldiers (i.e., SGT and SSG) and, in pertinent part, the reduction authority is delegated to field grade commanders of an organization authorized a commander in the grade of lieutenant colonel or higher.  The evidence of record further shows that the applicant was administratively reduced (emphasis added) from SSG (E-6) to SGT (E-5) by the colonel serving as commander of the applicant’s unit.  In addition, the evidence of record shows that the applicant’s reduction in grade was subsequently promulgated in orders by her parent unit (i.e., Headquarters, 81st Regional Readiness Command).  Thus, the applicant provides insufficient evidence to show she was improperly reduced in grade from SSG to SGT.  Therefore, she is not entitled to revocation or rescission of the reduction action or removal of the DA Form 2627 or reduction orders from her OMPF.

8.  The Army regulation provides that a separate flag will be initiated for the suspension of favorable personnel actions for each investigation, incident, or action and that the flag will be removed when the Soldier is released without charges, charges are dropped, or punishment is completed.  The evidence of record shows that a Flag was initiated on the applicant based upon adverse action, effective 28 August 2006, and that the flag was removed on 9 January 2007, based upon disciplinary action being taken.  Thus, the evidence of record shows that the two DA Forms 268 were proper.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the revocation or rescission of these documents.

9.  The applicant’s DD Form 214, issued at the time of her REFRAD, documents her record of service during the period under review.  However, the evidence of record shows that the applicant’s grade, pay grade, and effective date of pay grade require administrative correction based on her reduction in grade to SGT (E-5), which was effective 14 September 2006.

10.  The evidence of record indicates the applicant was released as a selectee for WOC school.  It is reasonable to conclude that this action was the result of the applicant’s misconduct and the ensuing period of the suspension of favorable personnel actions, which ultimately resulted in her reduction to the grade of SGT (E-5).  The applicant provides insufficient evidence to support her contention that the period of AWOL and her reduction in grade are without basis or unjust and that she should be reinstated as a selectee for WOC school.  Therefore, she is not entitled to reinstatement as a selectee for WOC school.

11.  By regulation, in order to remove a document from the OMPF, there must be clear and convincing evidence showing that the document is untrue or unjust.  The applicant provided insufficient evidence to this Board that the documents are 
untrue or unjust in this case.  Therefore, the DA Form 2627 and orders that reduced the applicant to the grade of rank of SGT are properly filed and should not be removed from the applicant's OMPF.

12.  There is a presumption of administrative regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs.  This presumption can be applied to any review unless there is substantial creditable evidence to rebut the presumption.  The applicant fails to provide such evidence.  Moreover, 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.

13.  Evidence shows the applicant’s records contain administrative error which does not require action by the Board.  Therefore, administrative correction of the applicant’s records will be accomplished by the Case Management Support Division (CMSD), St. Louis, Missouri, as outlined by the Board in paragraph 2 of the BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION section below.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___LDS__  ___FCJ_  ___CD___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  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.




2.  The Board determined that administrative error in the records of the individual should be corrected.  Therefore, the Board requests that the CMSD-St. Louis administratively correct the DD Form 214, with an effective date of 2 November 2006, as follows:

	a.  Item 4a.  Grade, Rate or Rank
		          Delete:  "SSG"
		          Add:      "SGT"

	b.  Item 4b.  Pay Grade
		         Delete:  "E-6"
		         Add:      "E-5"

	c.  Item 12h.  Effective Date of Pay Grade
	                      Delete:  "1987  03  18"
		           Add:      "2006  09  14"




____Linda D. Simmons_____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070003219
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
2007/09/06
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
Ms. Mitrano
ISSUES         1.
126.0600.0000
2.
134.0000.0000
3.

4.

5.

6.