ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180003031 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * restoration of his rank to Staff Sergeant (SSG) * personal appearance before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * self-authored letter * Orders 25-3 reducing him to Sergeant (SGT) from SSG dated 22 June 1992 * NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) discharging him with a Under Honorable Conditions discharge effective 1 July 1992 * Orders 133-54 discharging him from the Army National Guard (ARNG) effective 1 July 1992 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations; however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states: * he served 6 years and 9 months in the Regular Army * he was trained to be a Soldier * he respected his superiors and expected his subordinates to do the same * he was discharged from the Regular Army in October of 1988 * he joined the Ohio ARNG * he thought he could bring his years of serve and knowledge to his unit * he soon realized the ARNG was not the Army he had trained for * there was no accountability, discipline, or respect for rank * he was a SSG on annual training and was disrespected by a private * * he went and talked to the company commander and first sergeant about the incident * he was told the Soldiers were in the ARNG to go to college * this was a military exercise to train them for combat, he was dumbfounded by their response * he politely told the commander and first sergeant he couldn't lower his standards * he stated he would return his equipment and no longer lower his standards * he returned his equipment the next week * he had an honorable discharge as a SSG hanging on his wall * he found out through a request for his military records he was reduced to SGT in June 1992 * he had no record of this occurring * he asks the Board to look over everything; this has no monetary value but it means everything to him to have his records corrected * he asks to be returned to the rank of SSG and to have his military records changed as well * he could not disrespect himself as a Soldier and not go against what they were teaching their young Soldiers * these Soldiers deserved better 3. The applicant's service records contain a document entitled ARNG Participation Requirements, dated 11 February 1989. The applicant signed the document stating he had been counseled and understood the following responsibilities: * if he is not excused from scheduled training by proper authorities, it would be considered absent without leave (AWOL) and he would be charged with an unexcused absence * if he has nine or more unexcused absences within a one year period he will be declared and unsatisfactory participant and consider for separation * he is responsibility for informing his unit in advance of any change of address * he should contact his commander or his designee should he be unable to attend scheduled training * changes in his personal status affecting his ability to attend training must be brought to the command's attention immediately * he must continue to attend scheduled training until he has been relieved by proper authority * he will not receive credit for attending training if he is not in the proper uniform and does not present a Soldier appearance * he must promptly reply to military correspondence directed to him 4. The applicant was sent memorandums with the subject Letter of Instruction - Unexcused Absence for being absent from scheduled Unit Training Assemblies (UTAs) on multiple occasions. There is no evidence the applicant received the memorandums. He missed the following UTAs: * 25-26 January 1992 * 8-9 February 1992 * 13-15 March 1992 * 11-12 April 1992 * 13-14 June 1992 5. He was sent a memorandum subject Reduction for Inefficiency. The memorandum was dated 10 April 1992. There is no evidence the applicant received the memorandum. The consideration for reduction from SSG to SGT was for inefficiency based on the missed UTAs in January, February, and March of 1992. 6. He was flagged with a DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions) for adverse action on 8 April 1992. 7. He received nonjudicial punishment on 17 May 1992 for failing to attend UTAs in January, March and April of 1992. His punishment was reduction to SGT but it was suspended to automatically be remitted if not vacated before 17 November 1992. 8. He was sent a memorandum subject Return to Duty dated 19 May 1992 stating he was returned to a drilling status effective 19 May 1992. A loss control panel determined he should not be separated from his unit. He was required to attend scheduled training with his unit. He would be considered for separation if he accrued additional periods of unsatisfactory performance. There is no evidence he received the memorandum. 9. He was reduced to the rank of SGT effective 22 June 1992 under the provisions of NGR 600-200, paragraph 6-44b(1). It states, if appropriate an Article 15 may be used to effect reductions for misconduct. 10. He was discharged from the ARNG effective 1 July 1992. He received an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge. His rank on his discharge order and NGB Form 22 was listed as SSG. 11. National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), in effect at the time, established standards, policies and procedures for the management of Army National Guard (ARNG) enlisted Soldiers in promotion, appointment, reduction, and discharge. It states commanders may reduce Soldiers for the following reasons: a. Inefficiency. Inefficiency is defined not only as technical incompetence, but also as patterns or acts of conduct demonstrating that the Soldier concerned lacks the abilities and qualities required and expected of a Soldier of his or her rank and experience. Commanders may consider any act(s) of misconduct, to include conviction by a civil court, record of unexcused absences or unsatisfactory participation (whether or not such acts also result in disciplinary action) as evidence of inefficiency. b. Reductions for misconduct. If appropriate an Article 15 may be used to effect reductions for misconduct. 12. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) states an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents and evidence in the records. The Board considered the applicant’s statement, his record of service, his notification and record of missed drills, orders reducing him to SGT and the rank (SSG) appearing on his discharge orders and NGB 22. The Board found insufficient evidence to determine that the reduction was in error or unjust. Based on a preponderance of evidence the Board determined a correction to the applicant’s record to include the grade that he held upon release from the ARNG was not required. 2. The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 3. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. 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. 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, 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. 2. National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), in effect at the time, established standards, policies and procedures for the management of Army National Guard (ARNG) enlisted Soldiers in promotion, appointment, reduction, and discharge. It states commanders may reduce Soldiers for the following reasons: a. Inefficiency. Inefficiency is defined not only as technical incompetence, but also as patterns or acts of conduct demonstrating that the Soldier concerned lacks the abilities and qualities required and expected of a Soldier of his or her rank and experience. Commanders may consider any act(s) of misconduct, to include conviction by a civil court, record of unexcused absences or unsatisfactory participation (whether or not such acts also result in disciplinary action) as evidence of inefficiency. b. Reductions for misconduct. If appropriate an Article 15 may be used to effect reductions for misconduct. 3. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR), the regulation under which this Board operations, provides that ABCMR members will review all applications that are properly brought before them to determine the existence of an error or injustice, and to direct or recommend changes in military records to correct the error or injustice, if persuaded that a material error or injustice exists and that sufficient evidence exists on the record. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record; it is not an investigative body. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20180003031 5