2.  The applicant submits three applications.  Two request that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and one requests that his Private E-2 (PV2) date of rank be adjusted from 5 October 1988 to 12 July 1988 and that he receive back pay.  He states that following Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm his unit allowed soldiers to separate early.  He chose this option and received a general discharge.  Since then, he has earned a college degree.  He was under the impression that after earning his degree he could get his discharge upgraded.  As for the adjustment to his date of rank, when he entered active duty, he had referred the appropriate number of people who enlisted to qualify him for advancement to PV2 but lacked documentation at that time.  He later received the documentation and his grade was advanced.

3.  The applicant’s military records show he enlisted in the Louisiana Army National Guard on 4 January 1988 in pay grade E-1.  He was ordered to active duty for initial active duty for training (IADT) on 12 July 1988.  He completed advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 12B (Combat Engineer).

4.  A DA Form 4187, Personnel Action, dated 1 August 1988 advanced the applicant to PV2 effective 13 July 1988 under the provisions of paragraph         6-16, National Guard Regulation 600-200.

5.  The applicant completed his IADT on 20 October 1988.  His DD Form 214 shows his date of rank to E-2 as 5 October 1988.

6.  He was promoted to Private First Class, E-3 on 13 November 1988.

7.  On 12 March 1990, the applicant successfully completed the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP).  His date of enrollment is unknown.

8.  On 9 September 1990, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying a lawful order.

9.  The applicant’s unit was called to active duty for Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm on 30 November 1990.  He was promoted to Specialist Four, E-4 on this date.  He did not serve overseas.  

10.  The applicant received two counseling statements for being late to formation.

11.  On 3 April 1991, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for wrongful use of marijuana as found by a positive urinalysis.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1 and a forfeiture of $376 pay for 2 months.

12.  On 5 May 1991, the applicant was released from active duty and returned to State control.

13.  On 13 July 1991, the commander notified the applicant he was being considered for separation action under the provisions of Chapters 7, Misconduct, or 8, Other Drug Abuse Rehabilitative Failure, Army Regulation 135-178.

14.  The applicant acknowledged the separation action.  He waived counsel, waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before such a board, and waived representation by counsel before such a board.  He checked that he wanted to submit a statement in his own behalf but no statement is available.

15.  On 24 September 1991, the ADAPCP clinic recommended his separation as a rehabilitative failure.

16.  On 1 November 1991, the applicant was separated from the Army National Guard of Louisiana, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200 for misconduct.  He had completed 3 years, 9 months and 28 days of total service for pay.

17.  Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel from the Army National Guard and the U. S. Army Reserve.  Chapter 7 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Drug offenders in any enlisted grade must be processed for discharge on discovery of a second drug offense.  Chapter 8 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members who have been enrolled in the ADAPCP and it is determined that the soldier is a rehabilitative failure.

18.  National Guard Regulation 600-200 sets forth the basic authority for personnel actions, including separations and promotions, pertaining to soldiers in the National Guard.

19.  At the time, paragraph 6-16 of National Guard Regulation 600-200 provided authority for the “Stripes for Buddies” program.  If a soldier could convince two of his “buddies” to enlist in the National Guard prior to his IADT, he was entitled to advancement to pay grade E-2 upon the start of IADT.

20.  On 31 August 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.

21.  Per conversation with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service - Indianapolis on 10 September 1998, finance records show that the applicant’s advancement to PV2 processed for Reserve pay purposes effective 1 August 1988 (the date the DA Form 4187 was signed); however, for active duty pay purposes it did not process until 5 October 1988.

CONCLUSIONS:  

1.  The authority of this Board is limited to the correction of records of members of the Department of the Army and does not include correction of the records of individuals serving in the National Guard who are not in a Federalized status.  

2.  Since the applicant’s separation from the National Guard was accomplished in accordance with National Guard, not Army, regulations and since he had been released from a Federalized status on 5 May 1991, the Board does not have jurisdiction in the matter of upgrade of his discharge from the National Guard.  His appeal should more appropriately be addressed to the Adjutant General of Louisiana.

3.  This Board does have jurisdiction in the matter of adjusting his PV2 date of rank, since he was on active duty at the time.  Evidence in his finance records shows that while his advancement to PV2 processed for Reserve pay purposes correctly, for some reason it did not process for his active duty pay purposes until 5 October 1988.

4.  In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:  

1.  That the DD Form 214, block 12h, for the period ending 20 October 1988 be corrected by changing the effective date of pay grade to read 88 07 12.

2.  That the applicant receive all active duty back pay and allowances for the difference between pay grades E-1 and E-2 for the period 12 July - 4 October 1988.  (This does not affect his Reserve pay in any way.)

3.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDTION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

						
                                                                                                              
						CHAIRPERSON