IN THE CASE OF 

		BOARD DATE:	  27 November 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120007833 


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, in effect, correction of his military records to show his characterization of service as honorable and rank at the time of discharge as specialist four, pay grade E-4.

2.  The applicant states he does not understand why one document shows he was discharged with an honorable characterization and another shows other than honorable.  He also contends that he was demoted from sergeant, pay grade E-5 to specialist four, pay grade E-4 and had completed the 6-year requirement.  He suggests that he would not have stayed in the ARNG beyond 6 years if his pay grade was only E-2.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation.

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.  On 4 December 1976, the applicant enlisted in the Georgia Army National Guard (GAARNG).

3.  The applicant's DD Form 214, effective 28 July 1977, reports that he had completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).  He was released from active duty training (ADT) and returned to the GAARNG.  He held the rank of private, pay grade E-1 and was given an honorable characterization of service for this period of ADT.

4.  Orders 20-1, 1st Mechanized Infantry Battalion, GAARNG, dated 19 June 1982, announced the promotion of the applicant to sergeant, pay grade E-5, with an effective date of 10 July 1982.

5.  Orders 43-2, 1st Battalion, 122nd Infantry, GAARNG, dated 28 December 1983, announced the reduction of the applicant to the rank of specialist four, pay grade E-4 for misconduct, effective that same date.

6.  DA Forms 4856 (General Counseling Form) show:

	a.  On 21 June 1985, the applicant was counseled for being absent from both drill periods on 18 May 1985.  The applicant acknowledged his absence, said he was sorry, and would make every effort to not miss any more drills.

	b.  On 1 February 1986, the applicant was counseled in absentia for missing all drills on 11 and 12 January 1986.  The counselor stated the rehabilitative measures had been negative and recommended his reduction if he was absent from the next drill.

7.  Orders 2-1, 1st Battalion, 122nd Infantry, GAARNG, dated 14 February 1986, announced the reduction of the applicant to the rank of private first class, pay grade E-3, effective the same date.

8.  On 10 March 1986, another DA Form 4856 was completed wherein the counselor stated that the applicant had been absent from drills on 1 and 2 March 1986.  The counselor recommended that he be reduced to private, pay grade E-2 and discharged from the GAARNG.

9.  On 1 April 1986, charges were preferred under the provisions of the Georgia Code of Military Justice for violation of Section 86-783 by being absent without authority from drills on 1 and 2 March 1986.
10.  Orders 3-1, 1st Battalion, 122nd Infantry, GAARNG, dated 14 April 1986, announced the reduction of the applicant to the rank of private, pay grade E-2, effective the same date.

11.  On 17 April 1986, the applicant's battalion commander issued a warrant for his apprehension and confinement.  A summary court-martial had been convened on 17 April 1986 and the applicant was to be delivered into military custody to be tried.

12.  The applicant's National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) effective 27 May 1986 shows that he was separated from the GAARNG with an under honorable conditions characterization of service.  He was a private, pay grade E-2 at the time and had completed 9 years, 5 months, and 24 days of service.

13.  Orders 103-7, State of Georgia, dated 28 May 1986, directed the applicant's general discharge (under honorable conditions) from the GAARNG effective 
27 May 1986.  He was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement).

14.  Orders D-11-090728, USAR Personnel Center, dated 30 November 1988, discharged the applicant in the rank of private, pay grade E-2, from the USAR Ready Reserve effective 3 December 1988.  He was given an honorable characterization of service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends, in effect, that his military records should be corrected to show his characterization of service as honorable and rank at the time of discharge as specialist four, pay grade E-4.

2.  The available evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was capable of performing the duties of a Soldier and had attained the rank of sergeant, pay grade E-5 in 1982.  However, for reasons unknown at this time, the applicant began missing required drills and was counseled concerning the possible effects of such behavior.  His subsequent non-participation in unit drills resulted in his ultimate reduction to pay grade E-2 and eventual discharge from the GAARNG and the USAR.  His characterization of service when separated from the GAARNG was under honorable conditions.  When subsequently discharged from the USAR, he was given an honorable characterization of service.


3.  The applicant has not provided any documentary evidence showing that the evidence of record, as described in this case, is in error or unjust.  The applicant's statement that he does not understand why one document shows he was discharged with an honorable characterization while another document shows other than honorable is simply explained as the difference in his behavior during the two separate periods of service.

4.  In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied.

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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




________ _   _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)                                         AR20120007833





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120007833



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1