IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  21 April 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080017847 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Docket Number AR20080008301 boarded on 29 July 2008 which denied his request to upgrade his rank on his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), dated 1 January 1985 from specialist four (SP4)/pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-5.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was reduced from Sergeant (SGT) to SP4 upon transferring out of the state for civilian employment following his graduation from college.  He states he was not told the policies and procedures to properly transfer from one Army National Guard unit to another unit when civilian employment conflicts with regularly scheduled drill attendance.  He further states, in effect, that if he had been advised of all his rights and responsibilities he would have complied with the transfer instructions.  He states that a Major (MAJ) S_______ and a Captain (CPT) B________ were aware of his attendance predicament, but did not assist with or provide appropriate relocation guidance.  He states his prior active Federal service was exemplary with multiple promotions up to sergeant and recognition as Soldier of the Month by his unit. 

3.  The applicant provides a civilian resume, photocopies of professional business cards, four letters from separate authors, a self-authored personal statement, and a copy of ABMCR Docket Number 20080008301 in support of his application.



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 ABCMR in Docket Number AR20080008301 on 29 July 2008.

2.  As new evidence, the applicant provided a self-authored statement which states, in effect, that he is asking the Board to reconsider and grant him reinstatement of his rank to SGT.  He states, in effect, that he was not aware of the policies and procedures for Soldiers desiring to transfer out of the Ohio Army National Guard (OHARNG) due to civilian employment relocation requirements.  He stated he did advise a MAJ S_________ and a CPT B_______ prior his departure from Ohio.  He has since learned that the option does exist to transfer to another state's Army National Guard upon relocation due to civilian employment.  He further states that prior to his relocation he actively participated in monthly weekend drills and annual summer camps.  He concludes his statement by stating he was an exemplary Soldier when he served on active duty, earning promotion to SGT and he was also recognized as Soldier of the Month by his unit.  

3.  The applicant submitted four letters for the Board to review in its reconsideration deliberations.  The four letters are summarized as follows:

   a.  On 7 November 1979, the commanding officer of 187th Personnel Service Company congratulated the applicant on his consistently outstanding duty performance and stated he was a mission-focused Soldier who desired to excel. The letter further states, in effect, that the applicant worked with minimal supervision and limited personnel maintaining the promotion and reclassification section within the personnel service company supporting 8,500 Soldiers within three large military communities in Europe. 

   b.  On 14 May 1987, the executive vice-president and general manager of a Fortune 500 company acknowledged the outstanding sales of fiscal year 1986.  The applicant is not specifically identified in this letter nor named as the company's top salesman. 

   c.  On 17 August 1993, a president and chief executive officer of an international company stated in a letter that he wished the applicant continued success in the world of broadcast.

   d.  On 21 October 1994, a professor of Marketing and International Business at Cleveland State University stated in a letter that the applicant was one of the school's top graduates and that he had been following the applicant's career while he worked for three international firms.  He also acknowledged that the applicant had founded an internationally recognized company, was a creative entrepreneur, and a multifaceted and multi-talented individual.   

4.  In the original findings, the ABCMR determined there was no evidence showing the applicant had an out-of-state job transfer while serving in the OHARNG.  Further, the available record did not show and the applicant did not provide substantiating evidence to show he addressed this transfer with his chain of command or requested exemption from unit training assemblies and annual training due to the alleged job transfer.  He subsequently pled guilty at a Summary Court-Martial to one specification of being absent without leave.  The court-martial sentenced him to reduction in grade from SGT to SP4.  There is no evidence in the available records and the applicant did not submit any evidence that showed he was promoted again to SGT from the time he was reduced to SP4 to the time he was discharged from the OHARNG.  

5.  National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 establishes standards, policies, and procedures for the management of Army National Guard enlisted Soldiers.  Table 8-2 of this regulation, in effect at the time, established the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the NGB Form 22.  The purpose of the separation document is to provide the individual with documentary evidence of their military service in the ARNG.  Item 5a shows the 3-digit abbreviation of the Soldier's rank, Item 5b shows the pay grade appropriate for the rank shown in Item 5a, and Item 6 shows the date of rank.

6.  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 that his NGB Form 22 does not properly reflect his rank as SGT. 

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was absent from scheduled unit training assemblies on multiple occasions.  In each instance, he was notified in writing and he acknowledged the notification.  Accordingly, court-martial charges were preferred against him for several specifications.  He subsequently pled guilty at a Summary Court-Martial to one specification of being AWOL.  The Court-Martial sentenced him to reduction in grade from SGT to SP4.  It is presumed that the applicant raised the same contentions he made to this Board during his court-martial. 
3.  The applicant submitted letters to the Board for its review and consideration.  These letters stated the applicant was a successful private sector entrepreneur and that while on active duty he was an outstanding Soldier.  However, the applicant submitted no new evidence to show that he was promoted to SGT after his court-martial conviction, sentence, and reduction on 24 October 1985 to SP4 to the time he was discharged from the OHARNG, or that his court-martial conviction was unjust.  Therefore, his rank of SP4 and pay grade E-4 is correctly shown on his NGB Form 22.

4.  The ABCMR does not correct records solely based on the civilian accomplishments of an applicant and it does not correct records based on the passage of time. 

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X___  ___X____  ___X____  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 AR20080008301, dated 29 July 2008.



      _______ _ X  _______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080017847



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080017847


2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1