ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 May 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170001355 APPLICANT REQUESTS: her rank of Specialist (SPC/E4) is restored APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Two Letters of Support * Honorable Discharge Certificate – U.S. Army * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states her case was mishandled by the military police. At the time of the incident, it did not cross her mind to not accept a phone call on her personal device. She acknowledged that she made a mistake in judgement, but being the only person who faced action was unfair and unjust. She was never a bad soldier and never faced any administrative or legal prosecution prior to the incident. In addition, she was banned from leaving post until she signed her DD Form 214, which made it impossible to set herself up for success outside of the military. 3. The applicant provides: a. A letter of support from X____, dated 11 December 2015, which states the applicant was assigned to positions which involved oversight of experienced military and civilian police officers, she monitored alarm systems, which housed information and equipment vital to national security and the security of others. He adds that she was dependable and maintained high levels of professionalism (see attached). b. A letter of support from X____, dated 21 December 2015, which states that the applicant dedicated work ethic, along with her drive for professional development a. contributed to the command’s success. She embodied the “total Soldier concept.” As her former Platoon Leader, he ranked her among the top five percent of Soldiers he’d seen in his career. c. An Honorable Discharge Certificate from the United States Army, dated 16 July 2016. 4. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. She enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 January 2013. b. She served overseas in Korea from 13 June 2013 to 14 May 2014. c. She was promoted to the rank of SPC/E4 with an effective date of 8 January 2015. c. She accepted nonjudicial punishment, Article 15, on 24 May 2016, was reduced to the grade of E2, fined $878 pay per month for two months (suspended) and restricted to the limits of company area, dining/medical facility and place of worship for 60 days. d. Her DD Form 214 shows she was discharged under the provisions of chapter 4, due to disability with an honorable characterization of service. She completed 3 years, 5 months, and 9 days of active service. It also shows she was awarded or authorized: * National Defense Service Medal * Global War on Terrorism Service Medal * Korea Defense Service Medal * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon * Sharpshooter Marksmanship Badge with Rifle Bar * Certificate of Achievement (2nd Award) 5. The Army Grade Determination Review Board convened and determined the highest grade in which she served satisfactorily for the purpose of computation of disability retirement/separation pay is the grade of PFC/E3. 6. By regulation, it states a reduction board is required for Soldiers in the grade of Corporal or Specialist (when being reduced more than one grade). 7. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and his service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. 1. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found the relief was not warranted. Based upon the Article 15 received where a reduction in rank occurred and the ADRB’s decision to restore her to the rank of PFC, the Board determined there was no error or injustice which would warrant changing the applicant’s record. 2. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : 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. 5/28/2019 X CHAIRPERSON Signed by: 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. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three 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 three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-19 (Personnel General – Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), in effect at the time, prescribes policies and procedures governing the promotion and reduction of Army enlisted personnel. Chapter 10-1 (b) states a reduction board is required for Soldiers in the grade of CPL/SPC (when being reduced more than one grade).