IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  2 July 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140020048 


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, a review of his reduction in grade from sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 to private first class (PFC)/E-3. 

2.  The applicant states:

* in August 1986, he had a blood vessel rupture at the back of his head at the point of brain stem and spinal cord, and a stroke; this left him paralyzed on his left side and he could not continue his time with the 279th Combat Support unit in Tulsa, OK
* because he was paralyzed and could not complete his military service, they reduced him from E-7 to E-3 and honorably discharged him from the Oklahoma Army National Guard (OKARNG); he believes his reduction in grade was unjust 

3.  The applicant provides:

* Congressional correspondence
* DD Form 1966/4 (record of Military processing) 
* Orders 54-1, dated 28 June 1989
* Discharge recommendation memorandum
* National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service)
* Orders 19-14, dated 26 January 1988


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was born in February 1954.  He served in the U.S. Navy (July 1973 to July 1976) and the OKARNG (October 1976 to October 1979 and April 1982 to March 1983). 

2.  He enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 23 March 1983 in the rank/grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5.

3.  He enlisted in the OKARNG for a period of 5 years in the rank/grade of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 on 9 April 1987.  He was assigned as a section leader to the Combat Support Company, 1st Battalion, 279th Infantry, Tulsa, OK. 

4.  On 4 October 1987, Headquarters, 1st Battalion, 279th Infantry published Orders 22-1 reducing the applicant from SSG/E-6 to SGT/E-5 effective 4 October 1987 by reason of misconduct in accordance with paragraph 6-44b of National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management). 

5.  On 10 January 1988, the applicant was reduced from SGT/E-5 to specialist four (SP4)/E-4 effective 10 January 1988 and with a date of rank as 1 February 1977. 

6.  On 20 January 1988, by memorandum through the Commander, 45th Infantry Brigade, to the OKARNG, the Adjutant of the 1st Battalion, 279th Infantry indicating that: 

* circumstances surrounding the request for discharge for the applicant had been investigated by this office and found to be as stated by the commander 
* it is recommended the applicant be discharged from the OKARNG and be issued a General Discharge Certificate and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Individual Ready Reserve( IRR)) 

7.  On 26 January 1988, the OKARNG published Orders 19-14 discharging the applicant from the OKARNG with an under honorable conditions discharge, effective 8 February 1988 and transferring him to the USAR Control Group (IRR), in accordance with paragraph 8-27g of NGR 600-200. 

8.  The applicant was discharged on 8 February 1988.  His NGB Form 22 shows he was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 8-27g of NGR 600-200 as an unsatisfactory participant.  This form listed his rank/grade as specialist four (SP4)/E-4 with an effective date of rank as 1 February 1977.

9.  On 12 April 1989, the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center ordered the applicant's reassignment from the IRR to the 1st Battalion, 377th Infantry, effective 15 April 1989. 

10.  On 9 July 1989, Headquarters, 1st Battalion, 377th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade, issued the applicant an "Unexcused Absence" memorandum informing him he had been absent from training on 8 and 9 July 1989. 

11.  On 5 August 1989, Headquarters, 1st Battalion, 377th Infantry Regiment, published Orders 08-01 reducing the applicant from SP4/E-4 to private first class (PFC)/E-3 effective 5 August 1989 in accordance with Army Regulation 140-158 (Enlisted Personnel Classification, Promotion, and Reduction). 

12.  On 25 August 1989, Headquarters, 1st Battalion, 377th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade, issued the applicant an "Unexcused Absence" memorandum informing him he had been absent from training on 5 and 6 August 1989 and that he had accrued 8 unexcused absences this year.  The orders listed his grade as PFC.

13.  On 16 October 1989, Headquarters, 95th Division published orders reassigning the applicant from his unit, 1st Battalion, 377th Infantry, to the USAR Control Group (IRR) as an unsatisfactory participant, effective 16 October 1989. The orders listed his grade as PFC.

14.  On 29 August 1990, the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center published orders reassigning the applicant from the USAR Control Group IRR) to the 1st Battalion, 379th Infantry.  The orders listed his grade as PFC.

15.  On 5 April 1991, Headquarters, 95th Division published orders reassigning the applicant from his unit, 1st Battalion, 377th Infantry, back to the USAR Control Group (IRR), effective 29 August 1990, because he had been erroneously assigned to the 1st Battalion, 379th Infantry.  The orders listed his grade as PFC.

16.  On 7 April 1992, the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center published orders honorably discharging the applicant from the USAR effective 8 April 1992.  The orders listed his grade as PFC.

17.  Army Regulation 135-178 sets policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard of the United States and USAR enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons.  Chapter 7 of the regulation in effect at the time governed separation for misconduct.  The regulation states the honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally meets the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for military personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  A general discharge is warranted when a significant negative aspect of the Soldier's conduct or performance outweighs positive aspects of the Soldier's military record. 
18.  NGR 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management) governs procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the ARNG.  Paragraph 7-8 stated that the State Adjutant General is responsible for making determinations regarding continuous and willful absence. A notification of discharge may be either actual or constructive.  Chapter 8 of this regulation provides for reasons for separation from the ARNG.  Paragraph 8-27g of this regulation states that individuals can be separated for unsatisfactory participation.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization.

19.  Army Regulation 135-91 (Service Obligations, Methods of Fulfillment,
Participation Requirements, and Enforcement Procedures) governs service obligations of members of the Reserve Components.  This regulation states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when he or she accrues nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills during a 1 year period.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends, in effect, his reduction was due to a medical issue and that it was unjust.

2.  The available evidence shows the applicant served in the OKARNG from 9 April 1987 to 8 February 1988.  He had enlisted in the OKARNG in the rank/grade of SSG/E-6 but he was reduced from SSG/E-6 to SGT/E-5 effective 4 October 1987 by reason of misconduct in accordance with NGR 600-200.  Additionally, on 10 January 1988, the applicant was reduced from SGT/E-5 to SP4/E-4 effective 10 January 1988. 

	a.  There is no evidence in the applicant's records and he provides none to show he was selected for promotion to and/or held the rank/grade of SFC/E-7.  The available evidence shows the rank/grade of SSG/E-6 was the highest he held.

	b.  The nature of his misconduct that led to his reduction from SSG to SGT is not available for review with this case.  However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed his reduction was in accordance with the ARNG governing regulation and he provides no evidence to show otherwise.

	c.  The nature of his reduction from SGT to SP4 appears to be a result of unsatisfactory participation.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed his reduction was in accordance with the ARNG governing regulation and he provides no evidence to show otherwise.

	d.  The applicant does not provide any evidence of a ruptured blood vessel or evidence that such rupture led to his misconduct and/or subsequent unsatisfactory participation.

3.  After his discharge from the OKARNG, the applicant was transferred to the USAR where he was again reduced from SP4 to PFC on 5 August 1989 by reason of unsatisfactory participation.   He held the rank/grade of PFC/E-3 at the time of his discharge from the USAR on 8 April 1992.  There is no evidence he was promoted back to a higher grade between the time he was reduced to PFC and the time he was discharged from the USAR. 

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)                                         AR20140020048





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140020048



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1