IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 October 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130004095 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 correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show her rank/grade as private first class (PFC)/E-3 instead of private (PV2)/E-2. 2. The applicant states she was advanced to PFC/E-3 on 7 October 2011. She has a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) stating she was advanced to PFC/E-3. However, her DD Form 214 shows she was a PV2/E-2. She noticed the error when her unit tried to advance her to PFC/E-3. She is now concerned because she was not receiving the correct pay from 7 October 2011 to 2 August 2012. Additionally, her application for educational benefits was also denied because of the incorrect pay grade on her DD Form 214. 3. The applicant provides: * DD Form 214, dated 29 March 2012 * DA Form 4187, dated 7 October 2011 * DA Form 4187, dated 2 August 2012 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the California Army National Guard (ARNG) in the rank/grade of private/E-1 on 15 March 2011. She was advanced to the rank/grade of PV2/E-2 on 26 June 2011. 2. She entered active duty for training (ADT) on 18 July 2011 and she completed the required training for military occupational specialty 15N (Avionic Mechanic). She was honorably released from ADT on 29 March 2012. Her DD Form 214 shows in: * item 4a (Grade, Rate, or Rank) – PV2 * item 4b (Pay Grade) – E02 * item 12i (Effective Date of Pay Grade) – 2011  06  26 3. She provides two DA Forms 4187 as follows: a. A DA Form 4187, dated 7 October 2011, shows her advancement to PFC/E-3 with an effective date and date of rank of 7 October 2011 in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions). b. A DA Form 4187, dated 2 August 2012, shows her advancement to PFC/E-3 with an effective date and new date of rank of 16 March 2012 in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-19. 4. The case analyst of record contacted the applicant' chain of command on multiple occasions by email and telephone in an effort to establish the correct date of promotion. The chain of command (specifically, the immediate commander), the battalion S-1, and the battalion personnel sergeant, failed to respond. 5. Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes the enlisted promotion and reduction functions of the military personnel system. Advancement from E-2 to E-3 requires 12 months of time in service and 4 months of time in grade. Advancement to PFC may be waived at 6 months of time in service and 2 months of time in grade. 6. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. Chapter 2 contains guidance for preparation of the DD Form 214 and states that items 4a and 4b show the active duty grade or rank and pay grade at the time of separation and are obtained from the Soldier's records (promotion or reduction orders). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant was advanced to PV2/E-2 on 26 June 2011 and she entered ADT on 18 July 2011. She was released from active duty, and her DD Form 214 shows her rank/grade a PV2/E-2 with an effective date of rank of 26 June 2011. She provides two conflicting DA Forms 4187. The first shows she was advanced to PFC/E-3 effective 7 October 2011 while the second shows she was advanced effective 16 March 2012. It is unclear which DA Form 4187 is correct. 2. Since she enlisted in the ARNG on 15 March 2011 and she was advanced to E-2 on 26 June 2011, the earliest she would have been advanced to PFC/E-3 with waivers would have been 15 September 2011 (a waiver of 6 months of time in service and 2 months of time in grade). The first DA Form 4187 advancing her to PFC/E-3 effective 7 October 2011 does not indicate she received any waivers. 3. The second DA Form 4187 shows she was advanced to PFC/E-3 effective 16 March 2012, which is before the ending date of her DD Form 214. She would have been entitled to correction of her DD Form 214 if this DA Form 4187 is the correct one. 4. There is insufficient evidence to determine which date the applicant was advanced to PFC/E-3. As such, there is insufficient evidence to correct her DD Form 214. 5. As for her pay issue, the applicant is advised to discuss pay issues with her chain of command, battalion S-1, or servicing finance officer. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____x___ ____x___ ___x_____ DENY APPLICATION 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130004095 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130004095 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1