MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            16 July 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR200073392

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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:  In effect, that his rank and pay grade of specialist/E-4 (SPC/E-4) be reinstated and that his General Technical (GT) score of 117 be recorded in his military records.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that upon his reenlistment in the Army National Guard (ARNG), he lost his SPC/E-4 rank and pay grade.  In addition, he lost the time in grade that he had previously earned while serving on active duty.  He also requests that his GT score of 117 be reinstated.  He claims that he never received nonjudicial punishment (NJP), and received many awards during his periods of prior active duty service.  He also indicates that since he has already served as a SPC/E-4 and did not lose his rank due to misconduct, this rank should have been granted upon his reenlistment in the ARNG.  

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

That he served on active duty in the Regular Army (RA) for 3 years, 9 months, and 26 days, from 15 June 1982 through 10 April 1986.  The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to him upon his separation from this period of active duty confirms that he was honorably separated under the provisions of chapter 4, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of expiration of term of service (ETS).  

The DD Form 214 also shows that the applicant held the rank and pay grade of SPC/E-4 on the date of his separation, 10 April 1986, and that he had been promoted to that rank on 1 July 1983.  It also confirms that during his active duty tenure he earned the following awards:  Army Achievement Medal; Good Conduct Medal; Army Service Ribbon; Overseas Service Ribbon; Army Lapel Button; Marksman Marksmanship Badge (M-16 Rifle and Grenade).

The applicant also entered active duty in the Regular Army on 2 December 
1988.  He served for 5 months and 17 days until 18 May 1989, at which time he was honorably separated, in the rank and pay grade of private first class/E-3 (PFC/E-3).  The authority for his separation was chapter 6, Army Regulation 
635-200, and the reason was hardship.  

There are two Personnel Qualification Records (DA Forms 2-1) on file in the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  The first was prepared on 
17 June 1982, upon his first enlistment in the RA.  The second was prepared on 6 December 1988, upon second enlistment in the RA.  Item 8 (Aptitude Area Scores) of his 1982 DA Form 2-1 shows that his GT score was 90, and the 
1988 record showed his GT score was 105.  There are no test score records or DA Form 2-1 on file that records the GT score the applicant received upon his enlistment in the 2001 enlistment in the ARNG.  

A Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, Armed Forces of the United States 
(DD Form 4/1) on file in the applicant’s record confirms that on 16 October 2001, the applicant enlisted in the ARNG for 3 years.  This document also confirms that he began this period of service in the pay grade E-3.  

National Guard Regulation 600-200 establishes standards, polices, and procedures for the management of ARNG enlisted soldiers.  Chapter 2 prescribes policy and eligibility standards for the enlistment of persons with prior service (PS) or without prior service into the ARNG.  Table 2-5 contains guidance on the assigning grades to PS members enlisting in the ARNG.  It states, in pertinent part, that a PS member will be given the grade held at the time of the last discharge.

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.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he should have been allowed to enlist in the ARNG in his previous grade of SPC/E-4, but it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  By regulation, PS members enlisting in the ARNG are granted the grade they held at the time of their last discharge.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant held the rank and pay grade of PFC/E-3 on 2 December 1989, the last date he was discharged from active duty.  Therefore, the Board finds he was properly granted this grade upon his enlistment in the ARNG in accordance with the applicable regulation.

3.  In connection with the applicant’s request that his GT score of 117 be reinstated, the Board was unable to find evidence to show that the applicant ever received a GT score above the 105 recorded in his 1988 DA Form 2-1.  Further, the applicant failed to provide any related ARNG records or evidence to show there was an error in any of the GT scores recorded in the records on file.  Thus, the Board finds insufficient evidence to support this requested relief. 

4.  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.  

5.  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

__FNE__  __MHM__  __DPH___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002073392	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/07/16	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	N/A	
DISCHARGE REASON	N/A	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  302	129.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.