MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


	IN THE CASE OF:  
	                 

	BOARD DATE:      11 March 1998
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC97-09971

	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 following members, a quorum, were present:



	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	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 reduction to the pay grade of E-5 be voided and that he be restored to the pay grade of  E-6.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was reduced from the pay grade of E-6 to the pay grade of E-5 for being AWOL from his monthly drill in the California Army National Guard.  He further states that he called the armory and informed the battalion commander that he was a truck driver and that he would be out of the state during the monthly drill.  He goes on to state that he was informed to contact the unit commander and he did as he was told.  He goes on to state that when he found out his commander had reported him as AWOL he tried to appeal his punishment and was informed that it was too late. He continues by stating that his commander disliked him and ran his company in a heavy-handed manner.  He also states that he was a dedicated soldier who always took care of his troops and believes that he was unjustly reduced in grade.

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

The applicant initially enlisted on 10 December 1974 and continued to serve until he was honorably discharged on 7 September 1976 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, and the Expeditious Discharge Program for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. He had served 1 year, 8 months, and 12 days of total active service and had 17 days of lost time due to AWOL.

On 1 October 1984 he enlisted in the California Army National Guard with a waiver and continued to serve through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 28 January 1987 and to the pay grade of E-6 on 20 June 1991.  

On 19 January 1995 the applicant was honorably discharged from the National Guard and the USAR in the pay grade of E-5 on his scheduled expiration of term of service.

A review of the available records failed to show why or when the applicant was reduced in grade.  The only document indicating his pay grade as E-5 is his final discharge order.

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 appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the actions taken by the Department in the applicant’s case was in accordance with regulations in effect at the time.

3.  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     FE      RWG   DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director