APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That it be shown that his application for voluntary early release, with Special Separation Benefit (SSB), was approved.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was denied the SSB due to the premature closing of the SSB application window.  The message announcing the SSB specifically stated that the window for applications would remain open until 31 August 1994.  In addition, the message stated that selections would be made on the applications based on seniority.  If the window was prematurely closed, seniority could not be determined.

In support of his application he submits a copy of a message from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).  That message stated that the window for category 3 personnel would be open from 16 May through 31 August 1994.  Category 3 personnel were defined by the message as individuals who held certain grades and military occupational specialties and who had a basic active service date (BASD) of 30 September 1986 or earlier.  That message continued that eligibility to apply for SSB did not constitute an entitlement or guarantee of approval.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 October 1987 with 2 years, 11 months and 7 days prior active service, and was honorably released from active duty and transferred to an ARNG unit at the expiration of his term of service on 14 May 1995.

In a response to a congressional inquiry, the PERSCOM stated that they received an application for voluntary early release from the applicant on 4 October 1994.  However, his MOS had been removed from SSB consideration on 27 June 1994 as that MOS had by then been reduced to the level that had been targeted by the Army.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1.  The Army had reduced its strength for the applicant’s MOS and grade to its desired level prior to his application being received at the PERSCOM.  As such, he could not have been considered for voluntary early release with SSB.

2.  The applicant’s contention that the Army filled its quota of soldier’s with the applicant’s grade and MOS who would receive SSB prior to the scheduled expiration date of the window of consideration is supported by the evidence of record.  However, the PERSCOM message announcing the “buyouts” specifically stated that eligibility to apply for SSB did not constitute an entitlement or guarantee of approval.  In other words, a soldier had no right to an SSB, it was not an entitlement.

3.  It is noted that the PERSCOM received the applicant’s request for voluntary early release over a month after the closing date for his category of consideration.  As such, his contention that the program was terminated early is not relevant.

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