MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            3 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999032539

	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. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. John H. Kern		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, 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 be changed from staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG) to sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that other than a bogus order and letter from the Inspector General (IG) of the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM), there is no evidence to support his reduction in rank from 
SSG to SFC.  He has enclosed a copy of the reduction order and claims that the authority used is vague and covers a multitude reasons.  He also indicates that the reason cited on the order “by request of the individual” is not valid and he doesn’t believe he was even in the Army National Guard (ARNG) at the time of the reduction action.

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

On 9 July 1995, Orders Number 190 was published by the Adjutant General’s Department (AGD), Charleston, West Virginia.  This order reduced the applicant in rank from SFC to SSG, effective 9 July 1975.  The applicant was assigned a date of rank (DOR) of 1 December 1967, his original DOR to SSG and the reason cited for the action was “upon request of individual” and the authority for the action was National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200.

On 29 September 1975, a National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service in the Army National Guard of West Virginia) was published, which discharged the applicant from the ARNG.  This form showed that he was discharged on 13 July 1975, in the rank of SSG, after completing 10 years and 2 months of his latest enlistment and a total of 15 years, 8 months, and 13 days of creditable service.  The authority cited for the applicant’s discharge was paragraph 2 of Special Order 217, which was issued by the West Virginia AGD on 5 August 1975.  The reason for separation contained on the form was that the applicant acceptance an assignment to a USAR unit.  

Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) of the applicant’s Department of the Army (DA) Form 2-1 (Qualification Record) indicates that the applicant reverted to the rank of SSG, effective 9 July 1975, in conjunction with his reassignment from the ARNG to the USAR.  Item 35 (Record of Assignments) of the DA Form 2-1 indicates that on 14 July 1975, the applicant began performing duties as supply sergeant, in the rank of SSG, with the 304th Military Police company, a USAR unit.  It also verifies that he remained with that unit, in the same position, until he was transferred to the USAR Control Group in October 1984.  Items 
33 and 34 of the DA Form 2-1 identify that on 12 November 1983 the applicant reviewed and signed the form, which verified that the information contained on the DA Form 2-1 was, to the best of his knowledge, correct on that date. 

NGR 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), in effect at the time, prescribed the policy and procedure on all personnel management actions pertaining to enlisted members of the ARNG.  Paragraph 6-6 (Determining DOR) established that the DOR for an individual reduced at their own request, in order to effect a grade alignment in conjunction with a reenlistment action taken concurrent with a transfer, would be adjusted to include all prior service in the same grade.  Paragraph 6-35 (Administrative Reduction) provided the regulatory authority for taking this administrative reduction action at the request of the individual.

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.  After carefully examining the evidence of record and the independent evidence submitted by the applicant, the Board concluded that there was no basis for granting the requested relief in this case.

2.  The applicant’s qualification record clearly shows that he voluntarily transferred to a SSG position in the USAR.  In addition, it is clear from the record that the applicant was aware of the administrative reduction action that took place in conjunction with his transfer to the USAR.  Therefore, the Board had no choice but to conclude that the administrative reduction action was taken at the request of the applicant in order for him to accept a SSG position in the USAR.

3.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s claim that the order used to accomplish his administrative reduction contained an improper authority and there was no evidence to support the action, the Board concluded that the administrative reduction of the applicant was properly accomplished in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time.  Therefore, the Board determined that there was no justification for granting the applicant’s request that his rank be changed to SFC.

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 the aforementioned 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

___ewl __  ___rvo__  __jhk____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999032539	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/05/03	
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. 307	129.0500	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.