APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be reinstated on active duty in the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) program.
APPLICANT STATES: That the guidelines that the AGR retention boards follow for determining whether a soldier should be retained on active duty is unfair, as those guidelines fluctuate from board to board which does not give soldiers in the AGR program sufficient time to meet the new criteria for retention.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the USAR on 5 March 1969 in pay grade E-1, was awarded the military occupational specialty of light weapons infantryman, served continuously through reenlistments, and was promoted to pay grade E-7. During that time, his status was that of a drilling reservist.
On 9 February 1982 he was appointed a warrant officer in the USAR, not on extended active duty, specializing in supply matters. He was promoted to chief warrant officer three on 1 October 1990.
Facts relating to the applicant's contentions are contained in an opinion (COPY ATTACHED) from the Chief, Army Reserve (CAR), which is incorporated herein and need not be reiterated. The CAR stated that the applicants officer evaluation reports were not competitive against those of his peers, and that the AGR continuation board determined that it was not in the best interest of the AGR program to retain the applicant on active duty.
Army Regulation l35-l8 governs the implementation of the AGR program. Essentially, the program provides for selected Army Reserve (USAR) 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 years, with provisions for voluntary extension of the period of active duty beyond the initial call. Paragraph
4-11 of this regulation requires continuation boards to consider soldiers in the AGR program in the third year of their initial tour, and every fifth year thereafter.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, it is concluded:
1. Although an individuals AGR tour may be voluntarily extended, granting such extensions is solely within the purview of the Army. There is no inherent right of a soldier in the AGR program to have his or her tour extended.
2. Several of the applicants officer evaluation reports were below average, possibly contributing to his failure to be selected for continuation on active duty. The bottom line is his military record was found lacking by the AGR continuation board in comparison to his peers in the AGR program. Such a determination is well within the purview of that board.
3. The applicant has not shown that the AGR continuation board has fluctuating standards or, even if he had, that it would demonstrate an error or injustice which would warrant granting his application. Regardless of what standards were utilized by the board which failed to select the applicant for retention on active duty, there is no evidence to show that he was subject to different standards than other soldiers in the AGR program who were also considered for retention. The fact that other soldiers were retained demonstrated that the retention criteria of the board was obtainable.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants 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
DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009234
The applicant states that he was involuntarily separated from the Illinois Army National Guard (ILARNG) after 16 years and 8 months of active service. In general, the QRP provides for a review every two years of Reserve Component Soldiers serving in ARNG units and USAR TPUs who have 20 or more years of qualifying service for non-regular retired pay and who are within the zones of consideration. The evidence of record shows that the applicant entered the AGR program on 8 May 1988 and served...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9506737C070209
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. The applicants request to be retained in the AGR program in a subsequent assignment was denied based solely on his relief for cause OER. As such, it would be appropriate to grant the relief sought by the applicant, to correct his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017487
On 24 August 2010, counsel submitted the following additional documentary evidence: * A copy of the previously-submitted Consent Remand Order * Email exchange with the Army's Litigation Division * Supplementary Statement * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Promotion memorandum * DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) * DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report) for the periods 19990601 through 20000531, 20000601 through 20000909, 20001024 through 20011011, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607016C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be reinstated on active duty in the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) program. That failure to uniformly apply standards was also evident in the fact that the selection board reported that it voted a second time on minority selection because the selection boards first vote did not result in the selection of a sufficient number of minorities to fulfill the quota imposed on it by the Department. Army Regulation 135-18, paragraph 4-11, provides for the convening of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050018083C070206
Counsel states, in effect, that the applicant was an active duty CPT in the USAR when he submitted an application for the AGR Program in March 1997, along with necessary waivers with his application. There is no evidence of record that shows the applicant was ordered to active duty in the AGR Program or that he completed and signed a statement that he would serve in a captain position for at least 3 years. The evidence of record also shows that the representative of the FTSMD, Accessions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074797C070403
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that two Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOERs) be expunged from his records and that his records be corrected to reflect that he was retired from active Federal service or that his Active/Guard Reserve (AGR) tour be reinstated to enable him to complete sufficient active service for retirement purposes. On 21 November 1995 the applicant initiated an appeal of the two adverse evaluation reports. If it is determined that the soldier is not eligible...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9507774C070209
In response to a former request by the applicant, this Board directed that the applicant be considered by a STAB. Army Regulation 140-30, paragraph 7-1, states that officers in the AGR program may be selected for promotion regardless of his or her current position but will not be promoted until the officer is assigned to a position requiring the higher grade. The FTSMC stated that there were only a total of 142 colonel positions in the AGR program worldwide in 1995, with far more officers...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150006171
* 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 | CY2001 | 2001056808C070420
In January 1997, when the applicant was "conditionally selected" and ranked # 1 on the Order of Merit List (OML) for engineer duty, regulations required his "accompanying" waiver request be immediately forwarded for endorsement, recommendation, and DCSPER approval. Paragraph 3-3a(3) of the regulation states that the CAR has the responsibility to provide a recommendation for active duty through the appropriate selection process. The FTSMD advisory opinion further states that the accession...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 1997001072
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...