MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 January 1999 DOCKET NUMBER: AC97-09799 AR1999016446 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. 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: Correction to his grade on his discharge (NGB Form 22), effective 4 April 1994, to show Specialist (E-4) vice Private (E-2). APPLICANT STATES: During an investigation for discrimination, it was discovered and recommended that his grade be reflected as E-4 at his expiration term of service (ETS) and submitted to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. A copy of this action was not provided to the Board. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: He enlisted in the Tennessee Army National Guard (ARNG) as a E-2, on 5 April 1988. He attained the rank of E-4 on 15 January 1991. He served on active duty from 22 January 1991 to 16 June 1991 in support of Desert Shield/Storm. He was separated from active duty in pay grade E-4 and returned to his home unit. He was honorably separated from the Tennessee ARNG on 4 April 1994, in the grade of E-2 and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement). His records do not contain a date or reason for his reduction from E-4 to E-2. He enlisted in the ARNG as an E-2 on 27 March 1995, with a 1 year and 1 week enlistment option. He was promoted to private first class (E-3) on 7 May 1995. He was honorably separated on 4 April 1996, for expiration of service obligation. His NGB Form 22 shows his grade at the time of separation as E-3. In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the Tennessee ARNG, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel stating that a review of the only available records at the War Records Division did not reveal any information concerning the applicant’s request for reinstatement to the rank of specialist nor the reason why he was reduced in rank. A copy of the report of investigation that the applicant referred to in his application was not enclosed with the DD Form 149. An inquiry into the matter with a former Personnel Staff NCO for the battalion to which the applicant was assigned revealed that she thought that he was AWOL from some unit training assemblies immediately upon return from mobilization to Desert Shield/Storm in 1991 and that could have been the reason for reduction. This Board presumes administrative regularity in the processing of the applicant's reduction in rank. The burden of proof to show otherwise rests with the applicant. 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. In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to correction to his rank. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests. 2. There is no evidence of record to substantiate the applicant’s claim that an investigation determined that his grade be reflected as E-4 at his ETS. He has not provided the Board with a copy of the report nor the recommendation. 3. His contentions have been noted by the Board; however, they are not sufficiently supported by his records or his application. The Board concludes that the applicant was reduced in grade and properly separated as an E-2 on 4 April 1994. He has not shown otherwise and the Board presumes regularity in this case. There is nothing in the available records or in anything submitted by the applicant to overcome that presumption. 4. It is further concluded that the applicant was promoted to E-3 and his discharge correctly reflects his grade as E-3 at his ETS on 4 April 1996. 5. 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 the aforementioned requirement. 6. 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 LS______ RWG___ CLG ____ DENY APPLICATION Loren G. Harrell Director INDEX CASE ID AC SUFFIX RECON YYYYMMDD DATE BOARDED YYYYMMDD TYPE OF DISCHARGE (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) DATE OF DISCHARGE YYYYMMDD DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION (NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS) REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.