PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  19 December 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002074819

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		Member	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his last year of service in the Michigan Army National Guard (MIARNG) be counted toward his total service time for retirement.  This is also, in effect, a request to keep the pay he earned during his last year in the MIARNG.

3.  The applicant states that he requested and was granted a 1-year extension of service, beyond his 60th birthday, by the MIARNG but was denied this additional service credit by AR-PERSCOM.  He submits copies of his request and approval for an additional year of service in support of his application.

4.  The applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) was not made available to the Board.  Documents provided by the applicant show that he had over 3 years active duty between 30 October 1958 and 26 February 1962.  He enlisted in the MIARNG effective 28 December 1981.  Effective 27 December 2001, he was discharged from the MIARNG and placed on the State of Michigan retired list effective 28 December 2001.

5.  A 17 July 2000 memorandum from the applicant's unit to the Michigan Adjutant General requested an extension of service for the applicant so he could serve 
1-year beyond his 60th birthday to complete 20 years service.  On 4 August 2000, the MIARNG Enlisted Personnel Manager approved the request based on the authority to extend a soldier to the end of the month in which they will qualify for nonregular retired pay if it will occur prior to the 64th birthday.

6.  On 14 October 2000, the applicant extended his enlistment until 27 December 2001.  On 21 August 2001, the applicant requested transfer to the Retired Reserve effective 28 December 2001.  Effective 12 October 2001, the MIARNG issued orders that discharged the applicant from the ARNG effective 27 December 2001 and placed him on the retired list effective 28 December 2001.

7.  An ARNG Annual Statement of Retirement Points prepared on 28 December 2001, shows that the applicant reached 20 years of qualifying service for retired pay at age 60 on 27 December 1998.  This statement also show that the applicant was credited with performing 44 unit training assemblies and 112 days active duty between 28 December 2000 and 27 December 2001 for which he presumably received pay and/or allowances.

8.  On 9 April 2002, the Transitions and Separations Branch at AR-PERSCOM sent a memorandum to the MIARNG concerning the 1-year extension for the applicant.  The memorandum notes that the ARNG had issued the applicant a Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (20 year letter) and that he had enrolled in the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan based on that letter.  The memorandum went on to state that AR-PERSCOM had placed the applicant in the Retired Reserve effective 1 January 2001, his 60th birthday, and that the 1 year extension was not valid and could not be honored.
9.  National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 prescribes the policies for ARNG enlisted personnel management.  It provides that the authorized period of an extension of an enlistment must not exceed the last day of the month the individual reaches the 60th birthday.  Waiver of this requirement is only authorized when the soldier is not yet qualified for nonregular retired pay but can qualify prior to attaining age 64.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant believed that he had an approved extension of service and performed training duties beyond his mandatory removal date of 1 January 2001.  He should be entitled to keep the funds he received for all duty performed between 1 January and 28 December 2001.

2.  The extension of the applicant's service by the MIARNG was not valid since he had already completed the required service for nonregular retired pay at age 60 in 1998.  The applicant knew he had completed the required service as evidenced by his written response to the notification and he should not be entitled to credit for the additional 1-year of service or the associated retirement points.

3.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case for the individual concerned be corrected by allowing him to retain the funds already paid for his performance of duty from 1 January through 27 December 2001.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

___RO__  ___HO__  ___SK__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074819	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20021219	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.