MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 December 1998 DOCKET NUMBER: AC97-08738 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his release from the Army Reserves as an unsatisfactory participant be changed. APPLICANT STATES: That he requested release from his unit on 2 May 1996 because of financial hardship. He was told that everything would be taken care of then he received orders assigning him to the USAR Control Group as an unsatisfactory participant. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: He was honorably discharged from the Regular Army in pay grade E-5 on 6 February 1995 after completing 8 years, 2 months and 6 days service. He enlisted in the USAR for 1-year, in grade E-5, on 26 September 1995. On 16 January 1996 he receipted for a certified letter from his unit advising him that he was absent from unit training on 6 and 7 January 1996 and that unless his absence was excused, he would have accrued 4 unexcused absences in a 1-year period which commenced 6 January 1996. On 2 May 1996 he was sent another absent from unit training letter for missing training on 13 and 14 April 1996. He was advised that since 6 January 1996 he had now accumulated 8 unexcused absences. The letter was sent to him by certified mail, but there is no indication that the he receipted for it. On 26 June 1996 another certified letter was sent to him informing him that his absence from three of the four unit training assemblies on 22 and 23 June 1996 were unexcused and that he had now accrued 11 such absences in a 1-year period. The certified letter to him was not claimed. The record contains no evidence that any of his unexcused absences were later reclassified as excused. By order 250-38, effective 9 September 1996, the applicant was reassigned to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) for unsatisfactory participation. Army Regulation 135-91, Service Obligations, Methods of Fulfillment, Participation Requirements and Enforcement Procedures, provides in pertinent part, that a soldier is an unsatisfactory participant when 9 or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills occur during a 1-year period. The same regulation provides that a prescribed letter of instructions, unexcused absence, will be delivered to the soldier. Delivery will be either in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested. When certified mail is used, a copy of the notice and either a post office receipt confirming delivery or the returned unopened envelope showing the notice was not delivered will be placed in the soldier’s MPRJ. Mail refused, unclaimed, or otherwise not delivered may not be used as defense against unexcused absences when notices were correctly addressed to the latest official mail address furnished to the unit by the soldier. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: 1. The applicant was properly advised of the consequences of unexcused absences. The actions taken by his unit to advise him of his unexcused absences and to reassign him to the USAR Control Group for unsatisfactory participation were consistent with regulatory guidance. Despite his contention that he had made arrangements to be released from his unit for financial hardship, the record contains no evidence to support his claim. 2. It is difficult to believe that the applicant was unaware of his unexcused absences, even though he may not have received the notification letters for April and June absences, since he apparently attended unit training in February, March and May. 3. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING _JH_____ _FNE___ _TBR ___ DENY APPLICATION Loren G. Harrell Director INDEX CASE ID AC9708738 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 981209 TYPE OF DISCHARGE HD DATE OF DISCHARGE 950206 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 110.02 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.