MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           27 January 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1998013982

	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.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. John H. Kern		Member	

	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:  In effect, removal of a reduction in grade order that appears on her prior enlisted service microfiche, page 2, frame G5, and page 3, frame E4.

APPLICANT STATES:  That in reviewing her microfiche records in preparation for a promotion board she found the orders in her file.  She believes that it would appear as derogatory information to a promotion board and it would be an injustice for it to remain in her records.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

She was commissioned a USAR first lieutenant on 16 December 1989 with over 8 years and 7 months prior enlisted service.  She continued to serve in the USAR and was promoted to captain effective 15 December 1993.  She will be considered for promotion to USAR major in March, 2000.

A New York Army National Guard order dated 1 June 1987 appears on her enlisted microfiche record in two locations, on the OMPF fiche and the MPRJ fiche.  The order reduces in grade ten enlisted personnel, including the applicant based on termination from the state officer candidate program.

Army Regulation 640-10 provides the policy for filing documents in the OMPF and MPRJ.  It states that promotion and reduction orders will be filed on the service computation portion of the OMPF and MPRJ.

Army Regulation 135-155 provides the policy for promotion of Reserve Component officers.  It provides, in pertinent part that a promotion consideration folder for each eligible officer will contain the performance portion of the officer OMPF and other pertinent documents pertaining to their officer service.  There is no provision for providing prior enlisted service computation data to an officer promotion board.

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.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  Pertinent Army Regulations require the filing of reduction in grade orders in the appropriate OMPF and MPRJ.  There is no error or injustice in the filing of a reduction order pertaining to her in her enlisted records.

3.  There is no evidence of record, and none submitted by the applicant, that the promotion board that will review her records for the grade of major in March, 2000 will view her enlisted file which contains the contested document.

4.  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

__JEV___  __MKP___  __JHK___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1998013982	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990127	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.