BOARD DATE:	  24 April 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130013997 


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 restoration to staff sergeant (SSG).

2.  The applicant states he was reduced from SSG to sergeant (SGT).  He was never notified in writing of the pending reduction or given a chance to appear before a board to defend himself.  No reduction board was held and there was no action taken under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

3.  The applicant provides:

* a letter, dated 2 September 2010, from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC)
* Headquarters (HQ), 99th Regional Support Command (RSC), Fort Dix, NJ, Orders 10-279-00006, dated 6 October 2010
* HQ, 99th RSC Orders 10-279-00008, dated 6 October 2010
* HQ, 99th RSC Orders 11-039-00023, dated 8 February 2011
* ARPC Form 249-E (Chronological Statement of Retirement Points), printed on 24 June 2013
* an excerpt from Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions)

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  He previously served 14 years, 5 months, and 5 days in the Regular Army and 11 months and 25 days in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR).

2.  On 24 January 2004, he enlisted in the USAR.  He was promoted to SSG on 18 April 2005.

3.  A letter, dated 2 September 2010, from HRC notified the applicant he had completed the required years for eligibility for retired pay on application at age 60 (20-year letter).

4.  HQ, 99th RSC Orders 10-279-00006, dated 6 October 2010, reduced the applicant from SSG to SGT effective 6 October 2010.

5.  HQ, 99th RSC Orders 10-279-0008, dated 6 October 2010, amended the above orders to change the effective date of reduction to read "2010/10/15."

6.  The notification of reduction package and proceedings of any reduction board held were not available for review.

7.  HQ, 99th RSC Orders 11-039-00023, dated 8 February 2011, discharged the applicant from the USAR effective 8 February 2011.

8.  His Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) contains a Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period 
27 February 2010 to 8 February 2011.  The reason for the report was "Discharge."

	a.  Part IV (Army Values/Attributes/Skills/Actions) contains an "X" in the "No" blocks for Loyalty, Duty, Selfless-Service, Honor, and Integrity.  Bullet comments included:

* allowed personal feelings and bias to interfere with professional 	decision making
* placed self-interest above all other factors
* did not uphold the Army value of honor; was not trustworthy

	b.  Part IVb (Competence) was marked as needed much improvement and contained the bullets:

* was relieved of his assigned duties as a platoon sergeant
* was reduced in pay grade for inefficiency

	c.  Part IVc (Physical Fitness & Military Bearing) was marked as needs some improvement and indicated that he failed the 2-mile run portion of the Army Physical Fitness Test.

	d.  Part IVd (Leadership) was marked as needs much improvement and contained the bullets:

* failed to report to Battle Assembly for six consecutive months, obtained 	24 "U's" within the rated period
* failed to maintain leader book and Soldier records
* assigned Soldiers were unprepared for Battle Assembly on several 	occasions

	e.  Part IVe (Training) was marked as needed some improvement and indicated he failed to complete training plan for assigned Soldiers.

	f.  Part IVf (Responsibility & Accountability) was marked as needed much improvement and contained the bullets:

* failed to maintain electronic communication channels with rating chain 	as part of his directed duties
* failed to respond to emails as outlined in initial counseling

	g.  Part Va (Rater) Overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility was marked "Marginal."

	h.  The Senior Rater marked him as "Poor" in overall performance and overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility.  The Senior Rater provided the following bullets:

* this NCO has failed in his basic leadership duties and has been 	relieved of his position as platoon sergeant
* a poor example of a leader, do not promote
* NCO is not qualified for retention and his present course of conduct 	recommends separation actions
* NCO was unavailable for signature and has separated from service

9.  On 20 June 2011, he enlisted in the USAR in Mechanicsburg, PA.  He enlisted for 3 years in pay grade E-5.

10.  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.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-19, paragraph 10–17 provides for reduction for unsatisfactory participation.

	a.  A Soldier may be reduced one grade for unsatisfactory participation.  Reduction action is discretionary.  A commander may initiate reduction proceedings by presenting documentary evidence of unsatisfactory participation to the appropriate reduction authority.  

	b.  The commander reducing the Soldier will inform the Soldier in person or by certified mail of the action contemplated and reasons.  The Soldier will acknowledge receipt of the memorandum, in writing, and may submit any pertinent matters in rebuttal.

		(1) SGT through SGM may appear before a reduction board.  If Soldier declines appearance, it will be in writing and will be considered as acceptance of the reduction action.

		(2) A reduction board, when required, will be convened within 30 days after the Soldier is notified, in writing.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the notification of reduction package and proceedings of any reduction board held were not available for review, it is presumed that the Army's administrative processing of the applicant for reduction was correct.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

2.  The NCOER for the period ending 8 February 2011 that was completed for his discharge clearly documents the reasons he was reduced for inefficiency.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is determined that all requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the processing of his reduction for inefficiency.  

3.  In view of the above, there is an insufficient basis to restore his grade to SSG.  

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)                                         AR20130013997



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130013997



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1