MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:  26 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031332

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		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:  That documents pertaining to his service in the ARNG be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

APPLICANT STATES:  That the memorandum stating he had been confined for 90 days because of traffic violations is not true and had no relevance to his release from the ARNG.  He was reduced in rank for failure to attend training, not misconduct.  He should have been discharged for nonparticipation not misconduct.  He was not assigned in the supply specialty he was trained for and he lost interest when he was assigned as an infantryman.  He now plans to make the Army his home until he qualifies for retirement and these documents are hampering his chance of being promoted.  He was honorably discharged from the ARNG and these records must be expunged.

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

He enlisted with a field artillery battery in the ARNG on 13 June 1978 and completed training as a supply specialist on 29 June 1979.  His DA Form 2-1 (qualification record) shows that he was awarded the duty qualification as a cannon crewman effective 20 August 1978 by his unit.  It also shows that he was assigned as a carrier driver and cannoneer after completion of supply training.  His secondary skill was listed as a supply specialist.  There is no record that he was ever assigned duties as an infantryman or assigned to an infantry unit.

The applicant was promoted to grade E-3 effective 1 October 1979.  Effective 1 August 1980 he was reduced to grade E-2 for misconduct in accordance with NGR 600-200, paragraph 6-32.

On 12 December 1980 the unit commander sent a memorandum to the state personnel officer requesting the applicant be discharged from the ARNG and transferred to the Ready Reserve for the remainder of his obligation.  The memorandum cites the applicant with 12 AWOL absences in the past 12 months and stated that the applicant had expressed that he had no intention of attending anymore training.  The commander went on to say that the applicant had refused to return Army equipment which the Sheriff’s department had to recover and he was insubordinate and resents authority.

On 30 January 1981 orders were issued by the State which discharged the applicant from the ARNG effective 1 January 1981 under authority of NGR 600-200, paragraph 7-9o and 7-16.6h.  His NGB 22 (report of separation) shows that he had 2 years, 6 months, and 19 days ARNG service.  His character of service was listed as honorable and the reason for separation was unsuitability (apathy). He was transferred to the Ready Reserve for the remainder of his obligation.  The separation report of proceedings is not in the available record.  Effective 12 June 1984 he was discharged from the Ready Reserve by reason of completion of required service.
The applicant’s available enlistment documents include the DD Form 1966/1 and 1966/6, application for enlistment, shows that he was enlisting for assignment as a cannon crewmember in a field artillery unit.  It also shows that he agreed to accept initial training as a cook or supply specialist.

NGR 600-200 provides the policy for ARNG enlisted personnel management.  Paragraph 6-32 authorizes the promotion authority to take reduction action for misconduct.  AWOL is listed as one of the misconduct reasons.  Paragraph 7-9o of the regulation authorizes separation from the ARNG of those soldiers who demonstrate a lack of potential for continued ARNG service.  Paragraph 7-16.6h describes the separation process and authorizes separation in accordance with AR 135-178.

AR 135-178 provides the policy for separation of Reserve Component soldiers.  Chapter 6 establishes the policy for separation based on unsuitability when the soldier has demonstrated that he is unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training or become a satisfactory soldier.

AR 140-158 provides the policy for promotion of USAR enlisted personnel.  It provides that for promotion above the grade of E-6 the promotion selection board will review the photograph, DA Forms 2 and 2-1, Academic Reports, military and civilian school certificates, letters of appreciation, evaluation reports, and security clearance data.  No other items of the service portion of the OMPF or the restricted portion are made available to selection boards.

AR 640-10 provides the policy for maintenance of personnel records.  It provides for the placement of the NGB 22, the DD Form 1966 series, separation orders, reduction orders, and case files relating to separation on the service portion of the OMPF.

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 applicant is not entitled to the relief he now seeks.  He has provided no evidence to show that the reason and authority for his separation was in error or unjust given all the circumstances of the case.  Additionally his contention that he was not properly utilized in his ARNG unit or that his reduction for misconduct has no bearing on his current service lacks credibility.

2.  The filing of the documents that he seeks removal of is in accordance regulations and the Board finds no compelling reason to remove them as an exception to policy.

3.  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.

4.  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

_SK___  __CG___  _KK____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
				     Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031332	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000426	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	134.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.