2. The applicant requests that his retention beyond age 60 be antedated to the date he was commissioned in the Army National Guard (ARNG).
3. He states that neither he nor his state was aware that his retention could not be antedated which resulted in his loss of creditable service from 14 April 1993 to 19 February 1996.
4. His military records show that he served in an Army Reserve (USAR) unit as a commissioned officer from 22 January 1957 to 10 November 1965 and again from 21 July 1978 to the date of his commission in the ARNG as a colonel on 14 April 1993. He had been selected to fill a position as a general surgeon in an ARNG unit.
5. On 19 February 1996 the National Guard Bureau (NGB) approved the retention of the applicant until he reaches age 68 (31 October 1998). In the correspondence approving his retention he was informed that his retention could not be made effective the date of his appointment in the ARNG and, therefore, his service in the ARNG from the date of his commission in the ARNG until the date of the retention approval was not creditable for retired pay purposes. The NGB informed the applicant that his service in the ARNG prior to his retention approval would only be creditable if the effective date of his retention was corrected by this Board.
6. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 3855, and Army Regulation 140-10, paragraph 7-14.1, specify that certain Army Medical Corps officers may be retained beyond their mandatory removal date to the date they reach age 68.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. It is apparent that the applicants retention beyond his MRD was desired by the ARNG.
2. It appears that a lack of understanding by ARNG personnel concerning the effective date of a retention authorization beyond an officers mandatory removal date caused the applicant to lose almost 3 years of creditable service.
3. It is unfair to penalize the applicant by withholding accreditation for almost 3 years of service he performed due to a misunderstanding on the part of personnel responsible for handling his assignment.
4. In view of the foregoing, the applicants records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individuals request for retention beyond his MRD to age 68 was approved on the date of his commission in the ARNG on 14 April 1993.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
CHAIRPERSON
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014710
His issue is related to paragraph 2-5(h) (eligibility for consideration) of Army Regulation (AR) 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers) which states that if an officer's MRD falls within 90 days of a promotion board's convene date, the officer's packet would be removed and not be considered by the promotion board. Several errors were committed as follows: * He was not notified a year out from MRD that he would be released * His MRD was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064537C070421
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: His contentions that the LA ARNG denied his request for an extension of his MRD and he was removed from the service and forced to retire in May 2000 after an Army STAB had selected him for promotion to lieutenant colonel have been noted by the Board; however, he did not lose any service time. The evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013721
Also on the same date, by letter, HRC-St. Louis notified him that he was promoted as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army to LTC with an effective date of 11 January 2005 and a DOR of 15 April 2004. e. In the applicant's application, he submitted a letter from MG (Retired) V-----, who served as TAG of the State of Massachusetts at the time the applicant was appointed to MAJ in the MAARNG, dated 1 March 2010. Army Regulation 135-155 provides policy for the selection and promotion of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004162C080407
The applicant requests, in effect, that he receive credit for United States Army Reserve (USAR) service he performed after he reached age 60; and that his retirement pay be changed accordingly. This HRC retirement official further states that AMEDD officer MRD extension procedures are well known; however, it appears the applicant submitted his request to his chain of command in August 2005, which was just three months prior to his MRD and retirement date, and his request was processed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009331
The applicant served his extended ADSW tour and the State of California issued retirement orders and Federal recognition withdrawal orders with effective dates of 30 September 2006. Upon retirement, the applicant began receiving retired pay, but he was not credited with service from 14 July 2004 through 12 September 2006 because no Federal recognition orders had been published extending his Federal recognition beyond his original MRD. State Adjutants General are the approving authority for...
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 | CY2010 | 20100022274
He requested his records go before an SSB and as a result, he was selected for promotion. As a result, the Board recommends that the state Army National Guard records and the Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. voiding his current MRD extension by NGB; b. voiding his selection by the October 2010 promotion selection board and allowing his selection by the SSB to stand, which will in turn automatically extend his MRD to 30 June 2012; and c. showing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019981
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 December 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100019981 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests his mandatory removal date (MRD) be extended from 31 August 2018 to 31 December 2018. The applicable law states an AMEDD officer may not be retained in an active status later than the last day of the month on which the officer becomes 68 years of age.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110006343
The applicant requests, in effect: * adjustment of his mandatory removal date (MRD), from 31 August 2016 to 30 November 2019 * adjustment of his date of rank (DOR), from 17 December 2000 to 31 March 2004 2. The applicant states, in effect: a. he was reappointed and promoted in accordance with the provisions of the Wxxxxx lawsuit (Settlement Agreement, Lxxxx J. Wxxxxx vs. Fxxxxxx J. Hxxxxx, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Army, U.S. District Court for the Western District of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009171
He was transferred to the USAR Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) effective 2 March 1993 to complete his 8-year obligation and should therefore have been separated from the IRR effective 14 May 1996. In a memorandum, dated 24 April 2012, the Iowa ARNG stated its full support of the applicant's request for correction of his separation from the IRR. There is no evidence of record and he provided none to show he resigned or requested to be separated from the IRR upon the completion of his MSO or...