APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That he be reinstated on active duty in the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) program.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the guidelines that the AGR retention boards follow for determining whether a soldier should be retained on active duty is unfair, as those guidelines fluctuate from board to board which does not give soldiers in the AGR program sufficient time to meet the new criteria for retention.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted in the USAR on 5 March 1969 in pay grade E-1, was awarded the military occupational specialty of light weapons infantryman, served continuously through reenlistments, and was promoted to pay grade E-7.  During that time, his status was that of a drilling reservist.

On 9 February 1982 he was appointed a warrant officer in the USAR, not on extended active duty, specializing in supply matters.  He was promoted to chief warrant officer three on 1 October 1990.

Facts relating to the applicant's contentions are contained in an opinion (COPY ATTACHED) from the Chief, Army Reserve (CAR), which is incorporated herein and need not be reiterated.  The CAR stated that the applicant’s officer evaluation reports were not competitive against those of his peers, and that the AGR continuation board determined that it was not in the best interest of the AGR program to retain the applicant on active duty.

Army Regulation l35-l8 governs the implementation of the AGR program.  Essentially, the program provides for selected Army Reserve (USAR) personnel to be voluntarily called to active duty for special projects, programs or mission essential tasks.  Periods of active duty may vary from l to 3 years, with provisions for voluntary extension of the period of active duty beyond the initial call.  Paragraph 
4-11 of this regulation requires continuation boards to consider soldiers in the AGR program in the third year of their initial tour, and every fifth year thereafter.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, it is concluded:

1.  Although an individual’s AGR tour may be voluntarily extended, granting such extensions is solely within the purview of the Army.  There is no inherent right of a soldier in the AGR program to have his or her tour extended.

2.  Several of the applicant’s officer evaluation reports were below average, possibly contributing to his failure to be selected for continuation on active duty.  The bottom line is his military record was found lacking by the AGR continuation board in comparison to his peers in the AGR program.  Such a determination is well within the purview of that board.

3.  The applicant has not shown that the AGR continuation board has fluctuating standards or, even if he had, that it would demonstrate an error or injustice which would warrant granting his application.  Regardless of what standards were utilized by the board which failed to select the applicant for retention on active duty, there is no evidence to show that he was subject to different standards than other soldiers in the AGR program who were also considered for retention.  The fact that other soldiers were retained demonstrated that the retention criteria of the board was obtainable.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director