MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:           

	BOARD DATE:            25 February 1999 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999014617

	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	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James M. Alward		Chairperson	
	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Member	
	Mr. Samuel Calderon		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, that his records be corrected to show he was separated with a medical discharge in the pay grade of E-6, instead of being separated under the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (VSIP) in the pay grade of E-5.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That he should not have been demoted to E-5 and he should be given a medical discharge, not a voluntary separation by incentive.   

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

The applicant’s complete service and medical records are not contained in the available records.  However, the applicant’s DD Form 214, which was authenticated in his own hand, shows he was honorably discharged in the grade of E-5 on 31 July 1995 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, Early Release Program – Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI).  Based upon his completion of 15 years, 6 months, and 22 days active service, his VSI annuity was calculated as $8618.40 annually for 35 years.

Records show that upon the applicant’s release from active duty, he was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) and was demoted to E-4 on 25 September 1995.  Subsequently, he was assigned to the 479th Engineer Battalion Combat Corps in Watertown, New York.  On 2 July 1996, the applicant was relieved from the 479th Engineer Battalion for being an unsatisfactory participant and was reassigned to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement). 

The applicant’s request for separation under the VSI is not in the available records. 

To assist in the drawdown of the Army, the VSIP was established to provide incentives to soldiers to voluntarily separate from active duty and accept an appointment or enlistment in, or transfer to, the Ready Reserve or a Reserve component.  Both separation incentive options, the Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) and the Special Separation Benefit (SSB), were offered jointly.  Service members who were approved for the VSIP had the option of receiving either the VSI or the SSB.

Those choosing the VSI were to receive an annual payment equal to 2.5 percent of his/her annual basic pay, multiplied by 12 and multiplied again by the number of years of active Federal service.  The member had to agree to serve in the Ready Reserve (usually the Individual Ready Reserve where members do not drill but remain subject to recall) for the entire period that he/she received annual payments.  Individuals who elected VSI and chose to affiliate with the Selected Reserve (where members drill and receive basic and/or drill pay) forfeited some or all of their VSI payment while serving.
 
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’s contentions that he should have been separated with a medical discharge in the pay grade E-6, appears to be without merit.  Although the applicant’s request for separation under the VSIP is not present in the available records, separation under this program required voluntary application from the individual.  It must be presumed that he voluntarily requested separation under the VSIP and that his separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable laws and regulations then in effect. 

2.  The applicant’s contention that he should not have been reduced to the pay grade of E-5 also appears to be without merit.  Although the circumstances surrounding his reduction are not present in the available records, in all circumstances involving a reduction, the applicant is afforded due process and the opportunity to challenge such actions.  If the applicant was reduced by way of having nonjudicial punishment (NJP) imposed, he could have refused NJP and demanded trial by court-martial, whereas he could have asserted his innocence.  The applicant has failed to convince the board that his reduction in grade was in error or unjust. 

3.  Although not present in the available records, separation under the VSIP requires that the individual be medically qualified for separation and entry into the USAR.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary it must be presumed that the applicant was medically fit for separation.  The applicant has submitted no evidence to the contrary.

4.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that an error or injustice exists in his case.  

5.  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

___sc ___  __jlp____  __ja ____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999014617	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/02/25	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  110.000		
2.  108.000		
3.  129.000		
4.		
5.		
6.