RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  25 October 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070010136 


	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. Mohammed R. Elhaj

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Linda D. Simmons

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 reconsideration of his earlier request to be reinstated in the Army and reclassified into military occupational specialty (MOS) 31G (Tactical Communications Chief) effective March 1992.

2.  The applicant states that he had submitted his DD Form 398 (Personnel Security Questionnaire) as directed prior to his departure to attend the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC).  He further adds that there were unnamed people in his chain of command who set him up for failure.

3.  The applicant provided a copy of a 15 June 2007 self-authored letter, addressed to a Member of Congress, rebutting the Army Board for Correction of Military Records' (ABCMR) earlier decision.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20070000159, on 24 May 2007.

2.  The applicant submitted a copy of a rebuttal statement, which was not previously reviewed by the ABCMR; therefore, it is considered new evidence and as such warrants consideration by the Board.

3.  The applicant's self-authored letter addresses the following issues:

	a.  The Board's statement in Item 2 of the "Applicant's Request, Statement, and Evidence", that he did not submit his security update as stated in the reclassification letter.  He states that he did not receive this letter and that he has a high degree of integrity.

	b.  The Board's statement in Item 7 of the "Consideration of Evidence" that the Total Army Personnel Command approved his 11 May 1992 request for a December 1992 separation date.  He states that he did not sign any documents to extend his tour in Italy.

	c.  The Board’s statement in Item 9 of the "Consideration of Evidence" that the 510th Personnel Service Battalion Orders Number 116-13, dated 9 June 1992, reclassified his military occupational specialty (MOS) from MOS 74C 
(Record Telecommunications Center Operator) to MOS 31G.  He argues that these Orders were not assigned for the reclassification course until 9 June 1992, 8 months after the purported reclassification letter in October 1991.

4.  The applicant's records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 May 1979.  He was promoted to Staff Sergeant (SSG)/E-6 on 1 May 1986 in primary MOS (PMOS) 72E.  His records further show that he was assigned to Germany when he received orders to attend the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC) at Fort Gordon, GA, beginning in August 1991.

5.  As a result of a force restructuring initiative, the applicant's records show that he was reclassified into PMOS 74C (Record Telecommunications Center Operator) on 1 October 1991.

6.  On 22 January 1992, the applicant requested early separation under the provisions of the Special Separation Benefit (SSB) with a separation date of 1 June 1992.  His request was approved as reflected by memorandum issued by the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command on 11 May 1992, but with a separation date of December 1992.  However, on 8 June 1992, the applicant requested his separation date be changed to 15 July 1992.  His request was approved.

7.  On 9 June 1992, prior to the applicant's separation, the 510th Personnel Service Company, published Orders 116-13 awarding him PMOS 31G3O4A (additional skill identifier (ASI) 4A meaning reclassification training required) and withdrew PMOS 74C3O effective 21 March 1992 under the provisions of paragraph 2-31c of Army Regulation 600-200 (Personnel Separation).  

8.  On 15 July 1992, the applicant was honorably discharged under the Voluntary Early Transition Program (SSB).  He enlisted in the U. S. Army Reserve the next day.  The DD Form 214 he was issued, confirms that he was honorably discharged under the voluntary early transition program of Army Regulation 635-200 and that he was authorized a special separation benefit in the amount of $52,043.31.

9.  The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1992 established voluntary incentive programs to support the Army drawdown.  These incentive programs were designed to induce members of the Armed Forces to leave the military voluntarily.  Under both of the programs, the Voluntary Separation Incentive and the Special Separation Benefit, qualifying service members who voluntarily left active duty before their retirement vested received benefits based 

on their salary at the time of separation and on years of service.  Under the SSB, an eligible member would receive a lump sum payment equal to 15 percent of the Soldier’s annual basic pay multiplied by his years of active service.  Soldiers who applied for this incentive were required to enter into a written agreement to serve in the Ready Reserve for a period of not less than 3 years, in addition to any remaining military service obligation based in statute, following the separation from active duty.  

10.  Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), paragraph 2-31c states that mandatory withdrawal of a Soldier’s primary MOS is required by the reclassification authority under a number of conditions, including upon loss of qualifications, disqualification from the Personnel Reliability Program (when required of the Soldier); and lack of security clearance required to perform duties normally related to the MOS.  Involuntarily reclassified Soldiers who may no longer retain their current PMOS due to loss of qualification which precludes retention of the PMOS will be awarded the new PMOS with the appropriate skill level effective the date of approval of reclassification.  Soldiers awarded a new PMOS prior to reclassification training will also be awarded additional skill identifier (ASI) 4A to show reclassification training in the new PMOS is required.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that he is entitled to be reinstated in the Army and reclassified into MOS 31G.

2.  The applicant stated the original consideration of his case should not have questioned his integrity by stating that he had not submitted the DD Form 398.  The applicant appears to be contending that his reclassification letter (which is not available) erroneously stated he did not submit his Personnel Reliability Program periodic reinvestigation paperwork in a timely manner.  He contends, however, that he submitted the paperwork prior to departing for ANCOC.  He provided evidence to show he completed some of the forms required for a periodic Personnel Reliability Program reinvestigation, but he provided no evidence to show he attempted to resolve the discrepancy between his contention that he did submit the paperwork and the official determination that he did not submit it.  

3.  The applicant stated the original consideration of his case alleged that he requested a December 1992 separation date on 11 May 1992 and that he did not extend his tour in Italy.  Evidence of record shows that the Total Army Personnel Command, Alexandria, Virginia, approved the applicant’s request to 
separate in December 1992.  The applicant later requested 15 July 1992 as his separation date which was also approved.  It was not uncommon for Soldiers to select an alternate date during the SSB era.  

4.  The applicant stated that it did not make sense for the 510th Personnel Service Battalion to publish Orders to reclassify his MOS from MOS 74C to MOS 31G.  However, it does not change the fact that almost 15 years have passed since the applicant’s separation under the SSB.  It cannot be determined at this point in time what happened with his paperwork for his periodic Personnel Reliability Program reinvestigation.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that his request for separation under the SSB was processed in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time, at his request, and with his continuing consent.

5.  The Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) does not correct records solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for other programs or benefits.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__lds___  __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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20070000159, dated 24 May 2007.



							Linda D. Simmons
______________________
          CHAIRPERSON
INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070010136
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20071025
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144.0000
2.
100.0500
3.

4.

5.

6.