PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           12 September 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000042623

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred Eichorn		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, be corrected to show his rank as Specialist (SPC),   E-4.

3.  The applicant states that he was not reduced prior to his separation.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 December 1993.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13M (Multiple Launch Rocket System Crewmember).  He was promoted to SPC, E-4 on            29 February 1996.

5.  Twenty General Counseling Forms, DA Form 4856, pertaining to the applicant for the period between July 1997 and June 1998 are available.  Most of the DA Forms 4856 concern his monthly counseling sessions or promotion counseling sessions.  Only one concerns his failure to report to an accountability formation.  Most of the other forms include comments such as “You are very knowledgeable when it comes to ammo operations…You have good leadership skills,” “you stepped up and took charge,” “you are a hard worker,” and “great job on the platoon evaluations.”  Most of these forms also, however, comment on his being on the overweight program and his failure to pass his Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFT).  The promotion counseling forms only note that the applicant’s being in the overweight program and/or failing to pass his APFTs precluded him from being recommended for promotion to E-5.  None of them mention the fact that he could be reduced for inefficiency due to being overweight or failing to pass his APFTs.

6.  On 7 October 1998, action was initiated to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.  The reason for the proposed action was the applicant’s consecutive failures of the APFT.  On 13 November 1998, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant receive an honorable discharge.  

7.  A Personnel Action, DA Form 4187, shows that the applicant was reduced to Private First Class (PFC), E-3 for inefficiency on 19 November 1998.  

8.  On 20 November 1998, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.  His DD Form 214 shows his rank and grade as PFC, E-3; his separation orders were originally published showing his rank and grade as SPC but corrected orders were published showing his rank and grade as PFC.  The only available discharge certificate, provided by the applicant, shows his rank as SPC.  

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military personnel system.  In pertinent part, it states that inefficiency is a demonstration of characteristics that shows that the person cannot perform duties and responsibilities of the grade and MOS.  Inefficiency may also include any act or conduct that clearly shows that the soldier lacks those abilities and qualities normally required and expected of an individual of that grade and experience.  Commanders may consider misconduct, including conviction by civil court, as bearing on efficiency.  A soldier may be reduced under this authority for longstanding unpaid personal debts that he or she has not made a reasonable attempt to pay.  Individuals in the grade of E-4 and below may be reduced without action by a reduction board.  Company, troop, battery and separate detachment commanders are the reduction authorities for E-4 and below.  The soldier will be notified in writing of the intent to reduce him or her for inefficiency and the reasons.  The soldier will acknowledge receipt of the notification in writing by endorsement and provide any pertinent matters in rebuttal.  The case will be forwarded to the battalion for action, which will forward the finalized case to the Personnel Service Company, which will forward the reduction packet to the U. S. Army Enlisted Records Center for filing in the soldier’s Official Military Personnel File.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was reduced to PFC, for inefficiency, one day prior to his discharge.  The regulation authorizes such a reduction.  An E-4, in the zone of eligibility for recommendation to promotion to E-5, would be expected to be able to successfully complete his or her APFTs.

2.  However, there is no evidence of record, either in the applicant’s paper copy records or on his fiche, to show that the proper steps were taken prior to his reduction.  There is no evidence of record to show that he was notified of the intention to reduce him for inefficiency or that he was provided the opportunity to rebut such intention.  The only document on file is the reduction instrument.  In addition, the Board also believes that as a matter of equity it would be unjust to show that the applicant was reduced for inefficiency because he could not pass his APFTs.  The Board notes that it is rare for the chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance related cases that come to its attention to include instances of reductions for inefficiency.  It also notes that the applicant’s DA Forms 4856s show he was a good worker and a good leader.  The Board concludes that it would be appropriate to restore the applicant’s rank of SPC in light of his overall record of service.

3.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the applicant was not reduced for inefficiency on       19 November 1998 and that he was discharged in the rank and grade of SPC,  E-4.

2.  That the Defense Finance and Accounting Service pay to the applicant any pay and allowances due him as a result of the above correction.

BOARD VOTE:  

__cmf___  __fe____  __cjs___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			Calvin M. Fowler
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000042623	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000812	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	129.06	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.