MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 March 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000051105

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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 rank of Staff Sergeant (SSG), E-6 be restored.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was released from active duty at Fort Benning, GA and placed on medical hold.  In December 1998, the battalion operations noncommissioned officer started putting medical hold personnel on the duty roster which was a violation of policy and was unlawful.  Therefore, the Article   15 was unlawful.  According to the policy from the Fort Benning Medical Treatment Facility (MTF), medical hold personnel were only required to be assigned reasonable duty in a normal duty day.  Medical hold personnel were not required to be placed on duty rosters or to pull staff duty or charge of quarters.  Placing him on the duty roster was also a violation of policy set forth by the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (ODCSPER).  Supporting evidence is as listed on the attachment to this application.

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

After having had prior service in the Regular Army, he enlisted in the U. S. Army Reserve on 26 January 1977.  He was promoted to SSG on 15 October 1984.  

In September 1996, the applicant was ordered to active duty for 270 days in support of Operation Joint Endeavor.  Upon his return to Fort Benning, GA around May 1997 to be processed for release from active duty, a medical condition was found that required follow-up medical care.  Effective 30 May 1997, the authority that ordered him to active duty was changed to Title 10, U. S. Code, section 12301 based upon his voluntary request to remain on active duty to resolve his medical problems.

On 17 December 1998, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go to his appointed place of duty, to wit:  8:00 a. m. charge of quarters duty.  The continuation sheet to the Article 15 is not available.  His punishment was a reduction to Sergeant (SGT), E-5, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated on or before 17 June 1999.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

Apparently, the applicant committed another offense on 18 January 1999 and the suspended reduction was vacated.

On 15 September 1999, the applicant was separated, in pay grade E-5, due to a temporary disability.  The orders placing him on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) show that he was placed on the TDRL on 16 September 1999 in the rank and grade of SSG, E-6.

In September 1998, ODCSPER proposed policy guidance concerning Reservists ordered to active duty for contingency operations and who subsequently incur a medical condition that prohibits their scheduled release from active duty.  Soldiers faced the dilemma of either waiving their right to medical treatment to return home or remain at Fort Benning or elsewhere (sometimes many miles away from their family).  Inspector General complaints and congressional inquiries ensued.  The proposed policy recommended that all such Reservists be assigned to one unit identification code account to provide for 100 percent accountability and better management while sending the Reservists to their home of record with “duty at” the closest installation, National Guard Armory or Reserve Center until time of release.  

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 this requirement.

2.  The applicant provides no evidence to show that any Fort Benning, GA policy concerning medical hold personnel being placed on duty rosters was violated.  The ODCSPER memorandum he provided concerns only the assignment of such personnel for accountability purposes.  By his own statement, the Fort Benning MTF policy was that medical hold personnel were only required to be assigned reasonable duty in a normal duty day.  His Article 15 was for not reporting to charge of quarters duty at 8:00 a. m.  The Board concludes that charge of quarters duty for an individual on medical hold was reasonable duty and it was to be performed during a normal duty day.  

3.  While the applicant states that policy did not require medical hold personnel to be placed on duty rosters or to pull staff duty or charge of quarters, neither does he state nor does he provide evidence to show that such personnel were exempt from being placed on duty rosters.  From the evidence provided by the applicant, the Board concludes that the Article was properly administered.

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

__jns___  __le____  __cjp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR200051105	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010329	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	133.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.