MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            4 August 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021258

	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. Fred K. McCoy		Chairperson	
	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Member	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		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:  That his retired grade be changed to E-6.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was reduced in grade from E-6 to E-5 for inefficiency because he did not attend all of the required skill training.  He should be retired as an E-6 because he held that grade for 5 years.  He also states that another soldier in the unit was reinstated to E-6 and is drawing E-6 retired pay now.  He submits copies of several enlisted evaluation reports (EER’s) in support of his request.

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

He enlisted in the ARNG on 26 October 1977 with prior service in the ARNG.  His date of rank as an E-5 was 26 October 1977.  He was promoted to E-6 with a date of rank of 1 February 1982.  An EER for the period October 1986 to September 1987 states that he was being considered for administrative reduction to E-5 for inefficiency based on his failure to attend the required advanced NCO course.

Orders dated 17 November 1987 state that the applicant was reduced to E-5 effective 17 November 1987 for inefficiency in accordance with National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200.

The applicant continued his ARNG service until his voluntary separation and transfer to the Retired Reserve on 15 April 1990.  His NGB 22 (report of separation) shows his grade as E-5.  There is no evidence of record that action was taken to restore the applicant to E-6 prior to separation.

The three EER’s submitted by the applicant speak of his dedication as a soldier in performing his assigned mission and his performance in off duty activities.  He was an asset to the unit.

NGR 600-200 provides the policy for management of ARNG soldiers.  It provides that the appropriate commander may reduce an enlisted soldier for inefficiency when he lacks the abilities and qualities expected of his grade and experience and includes failure to complete required training.  There are provisions for grade restoration while still in the ARNG but not after separation.

There are no provisions of law or regulation that provide for restoration to a higher enlisted grade on transfer to the Retired Reserve when the reduction was based on inefficiency.

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.  The applicant has not shown, and the evidence of record does not indicate, that there was error or injustice in his administrative reduction or that action was or should have been taken to restore his grade prior to separation by the ARNG.

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

__fkm___  __inw___  __gdp___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021258	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990804	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	129.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.