APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his retirement be voided and that he be reinstated to active duty and returned to his assignment in Europe.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was forced to retire due to his selection by the 1992 Selective Early Retirement Board (SERB) and was never informed as to why he was selected.  He goes on to state that he has an admirable record, numerous awards, 15 years experience as an instructor pilot, and over 5,300 hours of accident free flying time.  

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

The applicant enlisted on 27 March 1972 for a period of 3 years under the warrant officer flight training enlistment option.  He successfully completed his training and was appointed as a USAR warrant officer one on 16 April 1973 with a concurrent call to active duty.  He accepted an appointment into the Regular Army on 7 November 1983 and was promoted to the grade of CW4 on 1 October 1987.

On 26 March 1993, while stationed in Germany, the applicant submitted a request for voluntary retirement to be effective 30 June 1993.  His request was approved on 27 April 1993.

Accordingly, he was honorably released from active duty on 30 June 1993 and placed on the retired list effective 1 July 1993 in the grade of CW4.  He had served 21 years, 3 months, and 4 days of total active service.  His report of separation (DD Form 214) indicates that he was retired under the provisions of section 638 of title 10, U.S. Code due to a reduction in authorized strength.

Title 10, U.S. Code, section 638 serves as the authority for 
conduct of the SERB.  It states, in pertinent part, that the Secretary of the Army will convene selection boards to consider Regular Army officers who are eligible for retirement and are not on a list of officers selected for promotion.

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

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  Although the applicant’s records do not contain any indication of his selection for separation/retirement by a SERB, it is reasonable to presume, based on the separation authority contained on his DD Form 214, that he was selected by a SERB and was properly afforded the opportunity to apply for retirement based on his length of service. 

3.  The applicant’s contentions that he was unjustly forced to retire without the benefit of knowing why he was selected by a SERB, is without merit.  It is a well known fact that officer selection boards do not reveal their reasons for selection or nonselection.  Therefore, the applicant’s contentions are speculative at best and are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.

4.  It is unfortunate that the applicant was not selected for retention on active duty.  However, this Board does not wish to act as a super-selection board by second-guessing selection boards which were afforded the benefit of comparing the applicant’s record of performance and evaluating his potential for further service against that of his peers.  Therefore, in the absence of any evidence of error or injustice there is no basis to approve the applicant’s request.

5.  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