IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150013407 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150013407 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ___________x______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150013407 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests the rank/grade on his discharge orders be changed to specialist four (SP4)/E-4. 2. The applicant states when he came returned home from active duty after completing training at Fort Belvoir, VA, in November 1987, the Louisiana Army Reserve Center in Bogalusa, LA did not issue him a “swipe card.” The swipe card was used for pay and roll call reports. He was told to sign in on the old roster until he could get a “swipe card.” In March of 1988, they told them the “swipe card” would also be used as the roll call. The next month, in April 1988, they put him out and they did away with the old rosters. He had no proof of any of the drills he had attended. 3. The applicant provides: * certificate for successful completion of training on 25 November 1987 * discharge orders * letter, undated, from the U.S. Army Financial Management Command, Indianapolis, IN * HighYield Money Market Account Disclosure from Trustmark National Bank written to the applicant, dated 26 September 2000 * Notice of Encumbrance, dated 19 January 2001, written to Trustmark National Bank, reference the applicant * Financial Log Inquiry, dated 23 (month unreadable) 2001 * letter, dated 15 March 2001, from Trustmark National Bank * letter, dated 13 May 2015, from the applicant to the U.S. Army Financial Management Command * letter, dated 25 June 2015, from the U.S. District Court Western District of Texas, reference: Expiration of Sentence (redacted) * letter, dated 8 July 2015, from the U.S. District Court Western District of Texas, written to the applicant * letter, dated 20 January 2016, from the applicant to the Army Review Boards Agency * letter, dated 10 May 2016, from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to the applicant CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant's DD Form 1966 (Application for Enlistment - Armed Forces of the United States), dated 14 September 1985, indicates he had prior service in the Army National Guard from 10 August 1984 to 13 September 1985. This form shows his rank as private (PV2)/pay grade E-2 with a date of rank (DOR) of 10 June 1985. 3. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with a separation date of 12 April 1985 shows he entered active duty on 10 December 1984 and he was separated on 12 April 1985 by reason of relief from active duty for training (ADT). He completed 4 months and 3 days of active service that was characterized as honorable. He was transferred to Company C, 890th Engineer Battalion, Columbia, MS. The DD Form 214 shows his rank as private (PV1)/pay grade E-1 with a DOR of 12 August 1984. 4. On 14 September 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Alabama Army National Guard (ALARNG) in pay grade E-2 for 8 years. His DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, Armed Forces of the United States) shows he had 4 months and 3 days of prior active service and 9 months and 6 days of inactive military service. 5. On 7 April 1986, he was promoted to private first class (PFC)/pay grade E-3 with a DOR of 7 April 1986. 6. On 29 June 1987, he enlisted in the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) in pay grade E-3 for 6 years. 7. On 15 October 1987, he was discharged from the ALARNG and transferred to the USAR, Jackson, MS. His NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows his rank as PFC with a DOR of 11 March 1987. He was in the inactive National Guard (ING) from 11 November 1986 - 14 October 1987. 8. The 344th Maintenance Company (Heavy Equipment) (Intermediate General Support), Bogalusa, LA sent three letters to the applicant concerning his absence from scheduled unit training assemblies (UTA). The letter dated: * 5 March 1990 (received by him on 20 March 1990) notified him the records showed he was absent from UTAs on 3 and 4 March 1990. He had accrued 4 unexcused absences within a 1-year period * 19 March 1990 (received by him on 27 March 1990) notified him the records showed he was absent from the UTA on 17 March 1990. He had accrued 6 unexcused absences within a 1-year period * 22 May 1990 (received by him on 29 May 1990) notified him the records showed he was absent from the UTA on 5 and 6 May 1990. He had accrued 9 unexcused absences within a 1-year period 9. A memorandum, dated 8 June 1990, written to the applicant from the 344th Maintenance Company (Heavy Equipment) (Intermediate General Support) determined the applicant's 9th absence on 6 May 1990 was unexcused. 10. Headquarters, 692nd Maintenance Battalion, New Orleans, LA Orders 7-4, dated 29 June 1990, reduced the applicant from PFC to PV2/E-2. The authority shown is paragraph 7-10 of Army Regulation (AR) 140-158 (Army Reserve, Enlisted Personnel Classification, Promotion, and Reduction). 11. Headquarters, 122nd U.S. Army Reserve Command Orders 35-28, dated 10 July 1990, reassigned the applicant to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training) (AT) by reason of unsatisfactory participation. The orders identify his rank as PV2. The authority shown is paragraph 4-11 of AR 135-91 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve - Service Obligations, Methods of Fulfillment, Participation Requirements, and Enforcement Procedures) and paragraph 4-1 of AR 140-10 (Army Reserve - Assignments, Attachments, Details, and Transfers). 12. USAR Personnel Center, St. Louis, MO, Orders D-06-353167, dated 29 June 1993, discharged the applicant from the USAR. The orders identify his rank as PV2. REFERENCES: 1. AR 135-91 states in paragraph 4-11a that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills occur during a 1-year period. 2. AR 140-10, in effect at the time, stated in paragraph 4-1 that troop program unit members who failed to satisfactorily participate per AR 135-91, chapter 4 and who had less than 36 months active duty credit were transferred to the USAR Control Group (AT). 3. AR 140-158 states in paragraph 7-10a (Reduction for inefficiency) that inefficiency is defined as a demonstration by an individual of distinctive characteristics which show the inability to perform the duties and responsibilities of the grade and MOS. It may also include any act or conduct which clearly shows the Soldier lacks those abilities and qualities required and expected of a person of that grade and experience. Commanders may consider misconduct, including conviction by a civil court, as bearing on efficiency. A Soldier may be reduced one grade only under this authority for longstanding unpaid personal debts which he or she has not made a reasonable attempt to pay. DISCUSSION: 1. When the applicant was released from ADT on 12 April 1985 his rank was PV1. He enlisted in the ALARNG on 14 September 1985 in the rank of PV2. While in the ALARNG he was promoted to PFC. 2. He enlisted in the USAR on 29 June 1987 in the rank of PFC. There is no record of the applicant being promoted to the rank of SP4. 3. On 6 May 1990, he had accrued nine unexcused absences from UTAs. On 29 June 1990, he was reduced from the rank of PFC to PV2. On 10 July 1990, he was transferred to the USAR Control Group (AT) by reason of unsatisfactory participation. 4. There is no record of the applicant being promoted after his reduction to PV2 on 29 June 1990. On 29 June 1993, he was discharged from the USAR as a PV2. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150013407 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150013407 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2