2.  The applicant requests that his discharge from the USAR be voided and that he instead be transferred to the Retired Reserve.

3.  He states, in effect, that he was not given the opportunity to be transferred to the Retired Reserve and that it took him over 2 years, without the assistance of his unit, to obtain the necessary documents to verify his service and eventually obtain his 20-year letter.

4.  The applicant's military records show that he initially served in the Marine Corps from 30 March 1959 until he was honorably released from active duty on 29 December 1961 and transferred to the Marine Corps Reserve.  He enlisted in the USAR on 4 May 1974 and continued to serve through repeated reenlistments in USAR units in Brooklyn, New York.

5.  On 2 May 1989 the Army Reserve Command at Fort Meade, Maryland published orders discharging the applicant from the USAR Control Group (Ready) on the expiration of his term of service effective 2 February 1989.

6.  On 28 May 1993 the Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) notified the applicant (20-year letter) that he had completed the required years of service to be eligible for retired pay upon application at age 60 (20 January 1997).

7.  There is no indication in the available records to show that he was afforded the opportunity to request transfer to the Retired Reserve prior to his discharge or that his unit ever requested a computation of retirement points and issuance of a 20-year letter.

8.  Army Regulation 140-10, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the assignment, attachment, detail and transfer of USAR soldiers.  Chapter 7 of the regulation relates to the removal of soldiers from active status and states, in pertinent part, that soldiers removed from an active status will be discharged or, if qualified and if they so request, will be transferred to the Retired Reserve.  

9.  Army Regulation 135-178, in effect at the time, established the policies, standards, and procedures governing the administrative separation of enlisted soldiers from the reserve components.  Paragraph 1-3 stated, in pertinent part, that orders discharging a soldier would not be revoked or the effective date changed after the effective date of discharge unless there was evidence of manifest error or fraud.  After the effective date of discharge, orders could be amended by the separation authority only to correct manifest errors such as the wrong character of service or correct administrative errors such as errors concerning rank, social security number, or misspelled name.

10.  Due to recent Departmental changes, certain benefits, such as commissary and post exchange privileges, accrue to Reservists with more than 20 years of qualifying service who are transferred to the Retired Reserve that do not accrue to those who are discharged.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's honorable discharge from the USAR was accomplished in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

2.  However, it appears that the applicant was not informed that he was eligible for transfer to the Retired Reserve and that he was eligible to receive his 20-year letter, which was issued to the applicant over 4 years after his discharge.

3.  Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that had the applicant been given the opportunity and properly informed of his eligibility to be transferred to the Retired Reserve prior to his being discharged from the USAR, he would have elected to be transferred to the Retired Reserve

4.  In view of the foregoing and since the applicant meets the eligibility requirements for assignment to the Retired Reserve, it would be equitable and just to correct his military records by voiding his discharge of 2 February 1989 and assigning him to the Retired Reserve effective the same day.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

	a.  by voiding the 2 February 1989 discharge from the USAR of the individual concerned; and

	b.  by showing that he was transferred to the Retired Reserve effective 2 February 1989.

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON