APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be reinstated on active duty in the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) program. APPLICANT STATES: That he was not selected for continuation in the AGR program due to genetic discrimination, in that he has “ugly/chubby cheeks.” He also questions the selection process used by the continuation board which failed to select him, stating that his awards, assignments, levels of responsibility held, evaluations and accolades should have caused him to be selected for continuation, especially in consideration that he has two areas of concentration (skills) which were identified as shortages in the AGR program. Based on the (supposed) fact that other officers with noticeably worse records than his were selected for retention while he was not, it appears that the selection board did not uniformly apply standards on who would be retained. That failure to uniformly apply standards was also evident in the fact that the selection board reported that it voted a second time on minority selection because the selection board’s first vote did not result in the selection of a sufficient number of minorities to fulfill the quota imposed on it by the Department. The applicant also questions whether the selection board reviewed his complete record. In support of his application he submits copies of his officer evaluation reports (OER’s), awards, letters of appreciation, certificates of completion of courses of instruction, and other related military records. The OER’s submitted by the applicant are not copies of the official record copy. Consequently, they do not have the senior rater’s profile imposed on them. Of the 11 reports submitted on DA Form 67-8, it appears that he was placed in the top block on only two. Of the three DA Forms 67-7 (an older version of the modern day OER form), he received scores of 176, 184 and 188 out of a possible 200. He also submits documents pertaining to the January 1990 USAR AGR Officer Continuation Board which he obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, which includes instructions to the selection board and the selection board’s after action report. The after action report which states, in pertinent part, “Statistics at the conclusion of the initial voting revealed minority and female shortfalls in numerous categories. Appropriate files were revoted which resulted in several (borderline) qualified individuals being selected for entrance and continuation.” EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records could not be located. Information contained herein was derived from the documentation submitted by the applicant. On 20 February 1990, while serving on active duty in the AGR program as the strength management officer in a USAR command, the applicant was notified that he was not recommended for continuation in the AGR program by the USAR AGR Officer Continuation Board which had convened on 17 January 1990 and would, therefore, be separated not later than 31 May 1990. Army Regulation l35-l8 and National Guard Regulation 600-5 govern implementation of the AGR program. Essentially, the program provides for selected Army Reserve (USAR) and ARNG 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. Removal from the program before the end of the contracted period of active duty can be accomplished by voluntary resignation, subject to approval, mandatory reasons, such as age or length of service for retirement purposes, medical reasons, failure to be selected for continuation, or by involuntary separation for cause. Army Regulation 135-18, paragraph 4-11, provides for the convening of continuation boards for individuals performing active duty in the AGR program and for the release from active duty of those individuals who are not recommended for continuation on active duty by a continuation board. This paragraph specifies that the selection boards are to select the best qualified soldiers for continuation. 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. The applicant has not submitted any evidence which would show that his physical appearance influenced the selection board. Therefore, that contention is dismissed. 2. The fact of the matter is that selection boards are neither required nor permitted to divulge the reasons for their actions. The information he obtained under the Freedom of Information Act in no way conclusively proves that his failure to be selected was the result of genetic discrimination or the result of the selection board’s attempt to comply with the instructions it was given by revoting. Therefore, the applicant has failed to show that either the selection board’s selection process or its application of standards was flawed. 3. The applicant’s record of service, as judged by the OER’s he submitted, is not as extraordinary as he would have the Board believe. As such, his contention that his record in and of itself should have caused him to be selected for continuation is also dismissed. 4. Whether or not his complete record was made available to the selection board is a question which could only be answered by the applicant’s former records custodian. The issue should have been raised immediately following his notification of his failure to be selected. At this late date, the Board presumes administrative regularity in that regard. 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 David R. Kinneer Executive Secretary