IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 January 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150004283 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, in effect: a. an upgrade of his general discharge from the Massachusetts Army National Guard (MAARNG) to honorable; b. restoration of his rank to sergeant (SGT)/E-5; and c. additional MAARNG service credit. 2. The applicant states: * in 1986 while serving in the MAARNG, he suffered complete hearing loss in his left ear and partial hearing loss in his right ear * he provided medical records to his unit and was told he would not have to return to his unit * he was told he would receive his discharge paperwork in the mail * the discharge he received is not what he expected * he was told nothing could be done when he called * his hearing loss is service connected 3. The applicant provides: * documents on hearing loss * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical records * page 1 of a letter from Clarke School Center for Audiological Services, dated 6 March 1986 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. Having prior active service in the Regular Army, the applicant enlisted in the MAARNG on 12 March 1980. He was promoted to SGT/E-5 effective 2 March 1984. 3. His records contain the following documentation dated March 1986, pertaining to his left ear hearing loss: * request for clarification for his retention in the ARNG with regard to documentation from the Clarke School Center for Audiological Services * tracer action on request for clarification for his retention in the ARNG * letter from the Clarke School Center for Audiological Services * medical record from the Clarke School Center for Audiological Services 4. The available records do not contain a response for clarification for his retention in the ARNG. 5. Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part ll) shows he was: * reduced to specialist four/E-4 effective 8 March 1986 * reduced to private first class (PFC)/E-3 effective 18 March 1986 6. Headquarters, 1st Battalion, 104th Infantry, Orders 20-1, dated 8 May 1986, reduced him from PFC to private (PV2)/E-2 effective 8 May 1986 for misconduct (failure to attend scheduled assemblies). 7. His records are void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his final discharge action. However, discharge orders and his National Guard Bureau Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) show he was discharged from the MAARNG for unsatisfactory participation on 23 May 1986 under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), paragraph 7-10r. He completed 6 years, 2 months, and 12 days of service. His service was characterized as general. He was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement). 8. There is no evidence showing he served in the MAARNG after 23 May 1986. 9. He provided VA medical records/documentation which show: * his primary complaint of decreased hearing since military service * complete loss of hearing since a viral infection in 1986 * history of noise exposure while serving in the infantry from 1974 to 1976 and ARNG from 1980 to 1986 * he was diagnosed with tinnitus * he was granted service connection for tinnitus associated with bilateral hearing loss (10 percent) 10. On 11 March 1990, he was issued an honorable discharge from the U.S. Army Reserve (Ready Reserve) under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178 (Separation of Enlisted Personnel). 11. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 12. National Guard Reserve 600-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the personnel management of enlisted personnel of the ARNG. Paragraph 7-10r stated a Soldier would be discharged from the ARNG for unsatisfactory participation. 13. Army Regulation 135-178 (Enlisted Administrative Separations) provides for the separation of enlisted personnel of the Army Reserve and ARNG. The regulation states the honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for military personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The evidence of record supports the applicant's contention he suffered left ear hearing loss in 1986. The VA medical record he provided states he suffered complete loss of hearing from a viral infection in 1986. 2. His contention he provided medical records to his unit showing his left ear hearing loss and was told he would not have to return to his unit was noted. However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant's separation processing was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. Without the discharge packet to consider, it is presumed that the authority and reason for his discharge and the characterization of service he received were commensurate with his overall record of service. 3. There is no evidence and the applicant did not provide any evidence showing his reduction to pay grade E-2 prior to his discharge from the MAARNG was in error. 4. Since there is no evidence which shows he served in the MAARNG after his discharge on 23 May 1986, there is insufficient evidence on which to credit him with additional service. 5. In view of the foregoing information, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's requested relief. 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) AR20150004283 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150004283 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1