MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 January 1999 DOCKET NUMBER: AC91-10305D AR1997000731 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Member The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by appointing him a Regular Army (RA) warrant officer in 1985 when he was not properly notified of his selection for RA Integration. APPLICANT STATES: He reports that he discovered this error in January 1990, and believes that the Board should not have invoked the 3 year time limit. He contends that even if the described notification procedure had been followed in his case, it would not have met the requirements of the governing regulation and he takes issue with the conclusion as to the quality of his service. He also concludes, in effect, that the Board has places undue credence in the quality of the advice obtained through advisory opinions. Finally he contends that he has convincingly demonstrated that individuals were considered for RA Integration without having applied. NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on . The applicant has provided a detailed point by point rebuttal most of the facts and a each conclusion provided in the former considerations of his case. 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 reports that he was considered for RA Integration without applying, that he was not notified of that selection as was required by regulation, and that his unavoidable failure to respond adversely impacted upon his career. However, the Board has considered the applicant’s arguments and concludes that even if errors were made the applicant suffered no injustice. If he was of the opinion that not being RA was detrimental to his career , it seems, he would have applied for RA Integration. If not responding to a tendered RA appointment were in fact detrimental, then he would have discovered the “error” at that time, rather than in 1990 as he now reports. The remaining contentions as to how this incident hurt his career are simply conjecture as to how his career would have progressed if he had managed it differently. 2. All discussion of the time limitation is moot. Prior to reaching the determination that it was not in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file, the Board looked at the entire file. It was only after all other aspects had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of the records that the Board considered the statute of limitations. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it undoubtedly would have recommended relief in spite of the failure to submit the application within the 3 year time limit. The Board has never denied an application simply because it was not submitted within the required time. 3. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision. 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 __RVO__ ___SLP _ ___KAN_ DENY APPLICATION Loren G. Harrell Director INDEX CASE ID AC91-10305 AR1997000731 SUFFIX F RECON F DATE BOARDED 19990114 TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE OF DISCHARGE YYYYMMDD DISCHARGE AUTHORITY DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 333 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.