MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            5 June 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002082868

	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.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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:  In effect, that he be granted an exception to policy to enlist in the Regular Army in the pay grade of E-7.

APPLICANT STATES:  That after fulfilling his obligation to the United States Army Reserve (USAR), he tried for months to obtain a release in order to enlist in the Regular Army and his chain of command delayed his release for months.  He tried three times in 2001 to enlist and again in 2002.  Each time he was informed that he had to obtain a release from the USAR.  Having little success, he solicited the assistance of his congressional representative.  In 2002 he began working with a recruiter and completed all of the necessary physicals, background checks and testing.  His recruiter believed him good to go and submitted a request for a determination of eligibility.  He continues by stating that his request was denied by the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) because he exceeded the age limit of 35.  He goes on to state that he is 45 but was 44 years of age when he began the process and was eligible.  Accordingly, he requests that he be granted an exception to enlist in the pay grade of E-7.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his enlistment denial from the PERSCOM and letters of support of his request for a grade determination.

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

He was born on 9 May 1957 and enlisted in Oakland, California, on 15 September 1977, for a period of 4 years. He successfully completed his training as a field systems COMSEC repairman and remained on active duty through a series of reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 May 1980 and on 14 July 1987, he was honorably discharged on the expiration of his term of service (ETS).  He had served 9 years and 10 months of total active service.  

On 21 December 1987, he enlisted in the Washington State Army National Guard (WAARNG) for 1 year.  On 21 December 1988, he enlisted in the USAR for a period of 1 year.  He reenlisted on 24 September 1989 for a period of 6 years and on 9 July 1995, he again reenlisted for a period of 6 years, in the pay grade of E-6.  He transferred units and was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 31 December 1999.  His ETS was established as 8 July 2001.

In September 2002, he submitted a request for a grade determination to the PERSCOM.  His request contained two memorandums from the recruiting company and battalion recommending approval.  On one of the memorandums, the Recruiting Company Manager indicates that the applicant understood that his return to active duty was based on a condition that the Department of the Army would make him an offer to enlist.  His request was denied by the PERSCOM on 24 October 2002, based on the fact that he exceeded the authorized age limit of 35, including his honorable active service

Army Regulation 601-210 governs eligibility criteria, policies and procedures for enlistment and processing of prior service applicants into the Regular Army.  It provides, in pertinent part, that a prior service applicant is eligible for enlistment in the Regular Army if they are 35 years of age or older, but less than 55 years of age and is not more than 35 (35th birthday) years of age, plus prior honorable active service in any of the Armed Forces.  Grade determinations for prior service applicants are made by the PERSCOM. 

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 this requirement.

2.  The Board has noted the applicant's contention that his request for enlistment was unnecessarily delayed by the USAR and recruiters and finds it to be without merit.  Neither the evidence of record or the evidence of record support his contention.  Furthermore, his enlistment was contingent on the needs of the Army at the time of application and he has not shown that had he enlisted earlier, the outcome would have been any different.

3.  While the Board understands his desire to serve at a higher grade on active duty, the PERSCOM is in the best position to determine if a waiver of age was appropriate based on the needs of the Army and apparently such was not the case.  In any event, the decision to deny him enlistment into the Regular Army does not necessarily constitute an error or injustice.

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
__tbr____  __kh____  __ao____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002082868	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/06/05	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  232	112.1000/WAIVER	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.