MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            8 March 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000046995

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Roger W. Able		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Lutz		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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 enlistment contract be corrected to show that he enlisted in the pay grade of E-3. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he should have been enlisted in the pay grade of E-3 instead of the pay grade of E-2.  In support of his application he submits a copy of a Personnel Action form (DA Form 4187) promoting him to the pay grade of E-3 effective 10 September 1998.

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

He initially enlisted in the Massachusetts Army National Guard on 26 November 1997 and entered active duty for training (ADT) on 11 February 1998.  He completed his ADT, was honorably released from active duty in the pay grade of E-2 on 28 August 1998, and was returned to his National Guard unit.  

On 1 September 1999 the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions in the pay grade of E-2 from the National Guard for unsatisfactory participation and was transferred to the United States Army Reserve (USAR) to complete his statutory service obligation.

On 17 April 2000, the applicant submitted a request for enlistment into the Regular Army in the pay grade of E-2.  He indicated in all the documents he filled out and indicated by his signature that he was an E-2 and that he desired to enlist for a period of 3 years as a technical engineer specialist.  He was granted a waiver for his unsatisfactory participation and reentry code by the Retention Management Division, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) and was allowed to enlist on 25 May 2000. 

In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the PERSCOM Retention Management Division which opined that the applicable regulation provides that members last separated from the National Guard and are within 24-months of separation will re-enter in the grade previously held at discharge.  It also provided that the applicant was last separated in the pay grade of E-2 on 1 September 1999 and was properly enlisted in the pay grade of E-2.  The opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and to date no reply has been received.

The DA Form 4187 provided by the applicant shows that he was approved for advancement to the pay grade of E-3 effective 10 September 1998.

A review of his records failed to reveal the circumstances surrounding his discharge from the National Guard.  However, it clearly shows that he was discharged in the pay grade of E-2 on 1 September 1999.  There is no indication in the available records to show that he was reduced in rank or simply was never advanced to the pay grade of E-3.
DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s contention that he should have been enlisted in the pay grade of E-3 appears to be without merit.  While the evidence submitted with his application indicates that he was approved for advancement to the pay grade of E-3, there is neither evidence to show that he was actually advanced to that grade or that he was subsequently reduced to the pay grade of E-2.

2.  However, there is evidence available to show that he was discharged from the National Guard with a general discharge on 1 September 1999, in the pay grade of E-2.  He subsequently requested enlistment into the Regular Army in the pay grade of E-2 and requested a waiver of his reentry code and general discharge.  In all of the available evidence he clearly indicates that he was serving in the USAR in the pay grade of E-2.

3.  In absence of evidence to show otherwise, the Board must presume that he was properly discharged and allowed to reenlist in the pay grade of E-2 within 24 months, in accordance with the applicable regulations.

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

__wdp___  __bjl____  ___rwa__  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046995	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/03/08	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  225	112.0200/enlist - term	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.