BOARD DATE: 10 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160003503 BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____x____ ___x_____ ____x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 10 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160003503 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20140006404, dated 9 December 2014. ______________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. BOARD DATE: 10 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160003503 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 reconsideration of the previous Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision that was promulgated in Docket Number AR20140006404 on 9 December 2014. Specifically, he requests correction of his records to show he was retired for length of service and to show his rank/grade at the time of his separation as sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7. 2. The applicant states: a. The evidence shows he voluntarily left early but he would like to explain why. Shortly after returning from Operation Desert Storm, his unit had a change of command. He and the new commander were not a good fit and he did not know why. The change went smooth; there was no problem. Everything was accounted for but after the new commander assumed command, something seemed to change. He was a different person; maybe it was the war. He knew his commander was different and he did not want to deal with it, so he decided to give up his career not knowing the things he knows now. It was a bad decision; he should have stayed and fought. However, he stayed and fought at Fort Eustis, VA. He got a military lawyer but that did not turn out well, so he left. b. As for his reduction in grade from E-6 to E-5, which occurred on 19 December 1984, that reduction was not an error. He had just returned from a three year tour in Germany. He arrived at Fort Eustis around October of 1984; there was a change of command shortly after his arrival. When the new commander took over, he had not been there long enough to know either commander. The supply sergeant had been relieved of his duties and the supply room was not in good shape. They came over to try to help him get his footing; however, they did not come to his defense. So he was informed that he was relieved of his duties and he would be reduced in rank for inefficiency. He wants to say that it was a hardship for him, his wife, and children after just returning from Germany. It would have been even more hardship had he not received on-base housing just in time. He was reduced from E-6 to E5 from December 1984 until May 1986. He was transferred to three different companies within that battalion and had no troubles. The orders that reduced him were not an error and the orders to revoke were not done the same day. Upon receiving his rank back, he put in for orders to return to Germany. He was sent to a battalion that was deactivating and he helped deactivate it. His company was not issued a statement of charges nor a report of survey; the only company to do so. Out of all the duties he performed in the Army, that is the one duty he is most proud of. So much for inefficiency. c. As for his promotion to SFC/E-7, he thinks he would have been promoted had he not spent all that time being demoted without just cause. After the deployment in support of Operation Desert Storm, his name came up for an Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Couse (ANCOC) seat, and in November 1990 he was sent back to attend ANCOC. He completed the course in March 1991. He was then sent back to the Middle East. When the unit returned, there was so much going on at the time, including a change of command from the commander who knew him and there just was not enough time for him to think about a promotion because he had to get things ready for the change. But he has no doubt that he would have been recommended for promotion because of his last noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER). 3. The applicant provides: * memorandum from Headquarters, 24th Transportation Battalion (Terminal), Fort Eustis, VA, dated 20 December 1984, subject: Reduction Board of [applicant's name] * his NCOER covering the period May 1990 thru April 1991 * pages one and two of a Complaint for Divorce without Minor Children, filed 19 October 2015 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20140006404 on 9 December 2014. 2. The applicant provides his NCOER covering the period May 1990 thru April 1991 and pages one and two of a Complaint for Divorce without Minor Children, filed 19 October 2015. These documents were not previously reviewed by the Board. Therefore, these documents are considered new evidence that now warrants consideration by the Board. 3. The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 1 December 1969. He was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 10 September 1971. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for this period of active service shows he completed 1 year, 9 months, and 10 days of active service. 4. On 2 December 1974, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army. On 26 September 1977, he was discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. His DD Form 214 for this period of active service shows he completed 2 years, 9 months, and 25 days of active service this period. 5. On 27 September 1977, the applicant reenlisted for a period 3 years. He continued his service on active duty through a series of extensions and reenlistments. He was promoted to the rank/grade of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 with a date of rank of 13 November 1980. 6. On 29 May 1986, the U.S. Army Transportation Center, Fort Eustis, VA, published Orders 103-105, which directed the applicant's reduction from SSG/E-6 to sergeant (SGT)/E-5 effective 19 December 1984. On 29 May 1986, the U.S. Army Transportation Center published Orders 104-042, which revoked U.S. Army Transportation Center Orders 103-10, dated 29 May 1986. 7. A DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) shows he completed ANCOC on 10 January 1991. 8. The applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) shows his record was forwarded to the SFC/E-7 promotion board in 1991. However, there is no evidence that indicates he was selected for promotion to E-7. 9. A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), undated, shows the applicant requested separation under the voluntary early separation program with entitlement to a special separation benefit (SSB). The DA Form 4187 also shows his battalion commander recommended approval of his request. 10. A memorandum issued by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) on 12 May 1992, shows his request for separation under the Fiscal Year 1992 (FY92) Voluntary Early Transition Program was approved. 11. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was released from active duty and transferred to the USAR on 11 June 1992. His DD Form 214 also shows that he: * was separated in the rank/grade of SSG/E-6 * completed 14 years, 8 months, 15 days of active service during the period covered by the DD Form 214 and had 4 years, 7 months, and 5 days of prior active service (a total of 19 years, 3 months, and 21 days of active service) * was separated under the FY92 Enlisted Voluntary Early Transition Program and received SSB payment in the amount of $61,642.35 12. The applicant was discharged from the USAR on 16 January 1996. There is no evidence showing he performed active duty service while he was a member of the USAR. 13. The applicant provides: a. A memorandum from Headquarters, 24th Transportation Battalion (Terminal), Fort Eustis, VA, dated 20 December 1984, subject: Reduction Board of [applicant's name], that shows a reduction board recommended his reduction from SSG/E-6 to SGT/E-5. b. His NCOER covering the period May 1990 thru April 1991, which shows he was rated as a SSG with a date of rank of 13 November 1980, his rater rated him as "fully capable," and his senior rater rated his overall performance as successful and his overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility as "superior." b. Pages one and two a Complaint for Divorce without Minor Children, filed 19 October 2015. The applicant's intended purpose for providing this document to the Board is unclear. REFERENCES: 1. Military Personnel (MILPER) Message Number 92-85 contained the implementing instructions for the FY92 Enlisted Voluntary Early Transition Program in support of the Army's drawdown. It provided that Soldiers approved for separation with an SSB would be paid a lump sum benefit equal to 15 percent of the basic monthly pay received on the date of the Soldier’s separation, multiplied by 12 and multiplied again by the Soldier’s years in service. 2. Title 10 U.S. Code (USC), section 3914 (10 USC 3914) provides that under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army, an enlisted member of the Army who has at least 20 years, but less than 30 years of service computed under section 3925 of this title may, upon his request, be retired. Section 3925 states for the purposes of determining whether an enlisted member of the Army may be retired under section 3914 his or her years of service are computed by adding all active service in the armed forces. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends his records should be corrected to show he was retired for length of service and he was separated in the rank/grade of SFC/E-7. 2. The evidence shows he voluntarily requested early separation, with entitlement to SSB, after completing 19 years, 3 months, and 21 days of active service. 3. In order to qualify for retirement under 10 USC 3914, a member must have 20 or more years of active service. The applicant failed to provide evidence that shows he performed additional active duty service while he was member of the USAR. There is no evidence that shows he completed a minimum of 20 years of active service. 4. The evidence shows the applicant was promoted to SSG/E-6, with a date of rank of 13 November 1980. Orders published on 29 May 1986 reduced him from SSG/E-6 to SGT/E-5, effective 19 December 1984. However, these orders were revoked on the same date. 5. The evidence shows the applicant's records were forwarded for promotion consideration by the SFC/E-7 promotion board; however, there is no evidence that indicates he was selected for promotion to SFC/E7. Therefore, his DD Form 214 for the period ending 11 June 1992 correctly shows his rank/grade as SSG/E-6. 6. The applicant failed to provided documentary evidence that shows his voluntary separation under the provisions of the FY92 Voluntary Early Transition Program was in error or unjust or the rank and grade shown on his DD Form 214 are incorrect. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160003503 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160003503 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2