PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           6 September 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001057616

	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	
	Mr. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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, in effect, that her Report of Separation and Record of Service (NGB  Form 22) be corrected to show her correct rank and pay grade of specialist/E-4 (SPC/E-4).  

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that the NGB Form 22 issued to her upon her discharge from the Army National Guard (ARNG) erroneously shows her rank and pay grade as private/E-1 (PV1/E-1). 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 9 September 1981, she entered the ARNG and that she continuously served in that status for 3 years, 8 months, and 18 days until being honorably discharged, by reason of pregnancy, on 
27 May 1984.

5.  Item 5a (Rank) of the NGB Form 22 issued to the applicant on the date of her discharge from the ARNG, 27 May 1984, lists her rank as “PV1” and Item 5b 
(Pay Grade) contains the entry “E-1”.  However, the date entered in
Item 6 (Date of Rank), “810909”, coincides with the date entered in 
Item 4 (Date of Enlistment), which is also “810909”.

6.  The applicant’s Department of the Army (DA) Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record-PQR) shows, in Block 18 (Appointments and Reductions), that the applicant was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SPC/E-4 on 1 June 1983.  This promotion and date are confirmed by Orders Number 1-1, dated 
1 June 1983, issued by Headquarters Battery, 1st Battalion, 171st Field Artillery, which is contained in the record and authorized this promotion. 

7.  The record also contains Orders Number 113-41, dated 1 June 1984, published by the Military Department of the State of Oklahoma, which authorized the applicant’s discharge from the ARNG, effective 27 May 1984.  This order was dated subsequent to the date of discharge and confirms that the applicant still held the rank and pay grade of SPC/E-4 on that date.  Further, the applicant’s record contains no suggestion that she was ever reduced for cause prior to her discharge from the ARNG.

8.  NGR 600-200, establishes the standards, policies and procedures for the management of ARNG enlisted soldiers and specifically the policy for enlisted promotion, appointment, and reduction.  Reduction guidance contained in this regulation refers to Army Regulation 135-178 as the controlling authority in regard to reduction actions taken in connection with enlisted separation actions. 

9.  Army Regulation 135-178, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted soldiers of the ARNG.  Paragraph 4-9 of that regulation provided the authority for the separation of enlisted women for pregnancy.  These regulatory provisions provided no authority or basis for the automatic reduction of enlisted members separating by reason of pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes the contention of the applicant that her rank was incorrectly listed as PV1/E-1 on her NGB Form 22 and finds this claim has merit. The evidence of record clearly shows that she was promoted to the rank of SPC/E-4 on 1 June 1983, and that she was never reduced for cause prior to her discharge.  

2.  In addition, the regulatory guidance under which the applicant was separated contained no provisions for the automatic reduction of a member being separated by reason of pregnancy.  Therefore, in the opinion of the Board, the rank, pay grade, and date of rank entries contained in the NGB Form 22 were obviously the result of an administrative error.  Therefore, the Board concludes it would be appropriate to correct them at this time. 

3.  In view of the foregoing, and insofar as the Department of the Army is concerned, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be changed  by showing that the individual concerned held the rank and pay grade of 
SPC/E-4, with a DOR of 1 June 1983, on the date of her discharge from the ARNG on 27 May 1984. 

BOARD VOTE:  

________  ________  ________  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__LLS___  __MHM__  __JTM___  DENY APPLICATION

		___Luther L. Santiful____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057616	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/09/06	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.