IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 September 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080014551 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his record be corrected in a manner that would lift the age barrier to his being commissioned in the United States (U.S.) Army. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he turned 42 years of age prior to attending Officer Candidate School (OCS). He states that he applied for OCS when he was 41 years of age. He claims he was accepted into the program and was given every expectation that he would be allowed to participate and receive a Regular Army (RA) commission if he successfully completed the course; however, he was not allowed to start the course beginning on 4 August 2008 due to his age. 3. The applicant provides a self-authored statement and a Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, Memorandum, dated 18 September 2008, in support of his application. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's record confirms his date of birth is 19 December 1965. It further shows that in September 2007, after serving on active duty in an enlisted status for almost 10 years and attaining the rank of staff sergeant (SSG), the applicant was selected to attend OCS. 2. The applicant was scheduled to attend the OCS class beginning on 4 August 2008. Upon reporting to OCS, the applicant's age disqualification was discovered and he was not allowed to begin OCS training. 3. During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Department of the Army (DA) Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, Chief, Officer Division. This official states, in pertinent part, that the applicant applied for OCS in good faith, and promptly followed the guidance provided to him as it was communicated. He states it can only be concluded that the applicant was a victim of the OCS selection process that did not note his age limitation until after he had exuded a significant amount of personal time, expense, sacrifice and effort on his family. He states another error source is the misinterpretation of the eligibility criteria listed in Military Personnel (MILPER) message 07-226, which states, in pertinent part, that Soldiers may apply for OCS training up to age 42 instead of Soldiers must complete OCS training prior to age 42. He concludes by stating that he believes the applicant should be allowed to complete OCS and the requirements for an RA commission. He indicates that a correction to the MILPER message was released but not soon enough to prevent the applicant from being approved for OCS. 4. Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 532 (Qualifications for original appointment as a commissioned officer) provides the statutory requirements for original appointments as a commissioned officer. It states, in pertinent part, that in order to qualify for an original commissioned officer appointment, a member must be able to complete 20 years of active commissioned officer service before his/her sixty-second birthday. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's request that his record be corrected in order to allow him to complete 20 years of active commissioned officer service before his sixty-second birthday has been carefully considered. However, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief. 2. By law, in order to qualify for an original commissioned officer appointment, a member must be able to complete 20 years of commissioned officer service prior to reaching his sixty-second birthday. 3. The evidence shows that although the applicant was selected for OCS, his age disqualification was discovered prior to his entry into the course and he was not allowed to begin training, and never in fact completed the required OCS training necessary for commissioning. Given the applicant was over 42 years of age prior to his scheduled OCS class and the age disqualification was discovered before he completed training, there does not appear to be a compelling basis, in light of the governing law, to grant equitable relief in this case. 4. 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. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____x___ ___x____ ___x ____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _______ _ x _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080014551 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080014551 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1