RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        4 March 2008
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070014328


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jerome L. Pionk               |     |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, restoration of his rank to staff
sergeant (SSG) on the date of his discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he requested both verbally and in
writing to be transferred from his unit due to hardship in attending drills
with his company, and these requests were denied.  He claims he was reduced
to sergeant (SGT) while he was on the way out.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence in support of
his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an
applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations
if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided
in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a
substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is
granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the
applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are
insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's record shows that he served in the United States Army
Reserve (USAR) from 22 December 1980 through 15 September 1981, and in the
Regular Army on active duty from 16 September 1981 through 8 July 1989.

3.  On 5 August 1989, he enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG), in the
rank of SGT.  His Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows that
he held and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 95B (Military
Police), and that he was promoted to SSG on 7 August 1991.  It also shows
he was reduced to SGT on 29 February 1992.

4.  The applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains
Headquarters, 64th Rear Area Operations Center (RAOC) Orders 11-01, dated
29 February 1992, which directed the applicant's reduction from SSG to SGT.
 The reason cited for the reduction was inefficiency.

5.  On 29 March 1992, the applicant was honorably discharged from the ARNG
by reason of incompatible occupation (employment conflict), and transferred
to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).  The separation document (NGB
Form 22) he was issued at the time confirms he held the rank of SGT and
that he had completed a total of 11 years, 4 months, and 8 days of military
service for pay purposes.

6.  On 8 April 1997, the applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR,
in the rank of SGT.

7.  National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management
System) prescribes policy and procedure for the career management of ARNG
enlisted personnel.  Chapter 6 contains guidance on enlisted promotions and
reductions.  The version of the regulation in effect at the time of the
applicant's reduction provided the authority for field grade commanders of
organizations authorized a lieutenant colonel or higher grade commander to
reduce enlistment members in the grades of E-5 and E-6 for inefficiency.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his grade should be restored to SSG on
the date of his discharge because he had repeatedly requested reassignment
based on hardship was carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient
evidence to support this claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was reduced from SSG to
SGT for inefficiency by proper authority on 29 February 1992, and that he
held the rank of SGT on the date of his discharge from the USAR on 8 April
1997.  Absent any evidence that his reduction was improper or inequitable,
there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the
requested relief.

3.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JEA__  __WDP _  __JLP___  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                 |AR20070014328                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2008/02/DD                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1997/04/08                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 135-178                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0300                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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