Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9506737C070209
Original file (9506737C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Approved
2.  The applicant requests that his military records be corrected to show that he was approved for a second tour of active duty in the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) program, and that he be given appropriate back pay and allowances that this correction would entail.

3.  He states that he was not given a second tour of active duty because of the prohibition of granting a second tour to an officer who had received a relief for cause officer evaluation report (OER) within 12 months of the termination date of his or her AGR tour.  Since he had been given a relief for cause OER, he was denied consideration of a second tour.  However, his relief for cause OER was not justified and was fatally flawed by administrative error, factors which resulted in the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) deleting the offending OER in its entirety.

4.  In support of his request he submits a memorandum from his rater during the time covered by the relief for cause OER.  His rater attests to the applicant’s positive attributes, states that he had given him a positive OER for the period which mysteriously disappeared, and opines that the applicant became a pawn in a power struggle between the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve (OCAR) and the Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN).

5.  The applicant’s military records show he was commissioned as a second lieutenant, ARNG, on 25 February 1962 at the age of 26 (his date of birth is 12 October 1935).  He entered on active duty in the AGR program on 8 March 1982, then a lieutenant colonel, with 1 year and 11 months of prior active service and 29 years, 2 months and 3 days of prior inactive (USAR/ARNG not on active duty) service.  He was promoted to colonel on 14 December 1982.

6.  On 3 September 1985 the applicant was notified that he had been selected by an AGR continuation board to remain on active duty in the AGR program beyond his orders termination date.

7.  While serving as a colonel as the chairman of a study group assigned to the ARPERCEN, he was given a relief for cause OER for the period covering 26 July through 2 August 1985.  That OER was given based on the applicant’s stated ineffectual management, his lack of knowledge and his substandard work which generated useless results.

8.  On 6 March 1986 the applicant submitted a request to be reassigned to a colonel AGR position.  That request was denied by the OCAR in October 1986.  In that denial it was stated that the applicant was not eligible for a subsequent tour in the AGR program based on his relief for cause OER.

9.  Accordingly, on 27 November 1986 the applicant was honorably released from active duty at the completion of his active duty commitment and was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).

10.  The applicant appealed that OER to the OSRB on 24 October 1990.  The OSRB concluded that the applicant had provided clear and convincing evidence that supported his contention that the contested OER was substantively inaccurate and administratively irregular and, therefor, the OSRB directed that the OER be deleted from his records in its entirety.

11. Army Regulation l35-l8 and National Guard Regulation 600-5 govern implementation of the AGR program.  Essentially, the program provides for selected USAR and ANG personnel to be voluntarily called to active duty for special projects, programs or mission essential tasks.  Periods of active duty may vary from l to 3 (recently, 5) years, with provisions for voluntary extension of the period of active duty beyond the initial call.  These regulations state that individuals who have been relieved for cause from any duty assignment may not be considered for an AGR assignment, either initial or subsequent, within 12 months of the report.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request to be retained in the AGR program in a subsequent assignment was denied based solely on his relief for cause OER.

2.  Since the relief for cause OER was later found deficient and ordered deleted, the reason for the denial of the applicant’s request to remain on active duty no longer exists.

3.  As such, it would be appropriate to grant the relief sought by the applicant, to correct his records to show that he was approved for a subsequent tour of active duty in the AGR program.  The period of active duty for second tours was routinely 3 years at the time of the applicant’s release from active duty.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

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

	a.  showing that the individual concerned was approved for a 3-year extension of his AGR tour of active duty;

	b.  by voiding his release from active duty on 27 November 1986;

	c.  by showing that he continued to serve on active duty in the AGR program in the rank of colonel from 28 November 1986 to 27 November 1989; and

	d.  by paying to him the back pay and allowances this correction will make due.

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021783

    Original file (20110021783.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests in a consent for a voluntary remand that the Board reconsider his previous requests to remove the officer evaluation report (OER) for the period of 1 July 1988 through 28 February 1989, that his nonselection for Active Guard Reserve (AGR) continuation be set aside, that he be reinstated to active duty with all due back pay and allowances until he meets the eligibility criteria for an active duty retirement, and consideration by a special selection board (SSB) for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088659C070403

    Original file (2003088659C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT STATES : In a four page memorandum to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), in effect, that the Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) does not have the authority to void his JAGC appointment. In Part IVa, the applicant received 4 ratings of "1", 7 ratings of "2" and 3 ratings of "3". Paragraph 4-27 of Army Regulation 623-105 requires that certain types of Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) be referred to the rated officer for acknowledgement and comment before they...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150006171

    Original file (20150006171.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    * There is no appeal process, waivers, or redress for AGR officers selected for REFRAD who are eligible for consideration by the REFRAD board; however, officers selected by the board and were later found to have been ineligible for consideration may have their REFRAD selection nullified with approval of CAR of his representative 8. He provides a FAQs printout, updated on 15 April 2014 that answers questions related to: * Officer population to be considered by the REFRAD board * Selection...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8905280

    Original file (8905280.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests the following corrections be made to his military records: (a) that the Board’s directive that his relief for cause Officer Efficiency Report (OER) and related derogatory documents be removed from his military files be complied with; (b) that his two Meritorious Service Medals be posted to his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF); (c) that he be promoted to lieutenant colonel effective 1 June 1991; (d) that he be given back pay from the date of that promotion to the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050012937C070206

    Original file (20050012937C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Her non-selection for continuation in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program by the 12 January 2004 Active Federal Continuation Board (AFSTCB) be set-aside; c. Her 30 September 2004 release from active duty (REFRAD) be set-aside and she be reinstated to active duty in the AGR with all back pay and allowances due; d. The 7 February 2003 General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) that was transferred to the restricted (R-Fiche) portion of her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) on 8...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063738C070421

    Original file (2001063738C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He asserted that he had not been timely counseled, that the OER did not include any of the 31 contributions he listed on his support form, that it was his rater who did not understand the brigade’s mission or lane training process, that it was not his responsibility to review his work, as there was an individual assigned to do just that, and that he was not aware that he was not allowed to give briefings. The applicant submitted an appeal of the OER to the OSRB on 29 September 1997,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088782C070403

    Original file (2003088782C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Paragraph 3-32 of Army Regulation 623-105 states in part, referred reports will be given to the rated officer by the senior rater for acknowledgment and comment before they are sent to Headquarters Department of the Army. Any report with a senior rater promotion potential evaluation of “Do not Promote” in Part VIIa or narrative comments to that effect from the senior rating official.Paragraph 1-15 of Army Regulation 623-105 provides that a rated officer may request a CI. d. The applicant...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 1997001072

    Original file (1997001072.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    COUNSEL CONTENDS : That the applicant’s nonselection for continuation on active duty in the AGR Program by the Calendar Year (CY) 1991 AGR Continuation board was legally and materially in error and unjust in that the applicant was erroneously considered by that board; that that board was conducted in violation of governing regulation, since the membership did not include, to the extent possible, representation from the AGR Program and that he should have been continued on active duty without...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9306347

    Original file (9306347.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A 4th Endorsement, dated 8 April 1987, from the Chief, Personnel Division (a colonel), HQ, Department of the Army (DA), Office of the Chief, Army Reserve (OCAR), to the Commander, U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center, indicates that the request for involuntary release from the AGR program was disapproved; that, although the applicant was ineligible for further duty as a recruiter, per Army Regulation 601-1, documentation submitted did not substantiate release from active duty; that a review of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004886

    Original file (20080004886.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Through a State Representative, the applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his two earlier petitions requesting the removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) and Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) for the periods ending on 4 May 1989 and 12 October 1989, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF); and his reinstatement on active duty in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program. In a letter to his State Representative, the applicant states, in effect, that...