| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deyon D. Battle | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Member | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Lutz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be granted a 15-year retirement under the Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 Enlisted Early Retirement Program (EERP).
APPLICANT STATES: That he was not informed about the FY 1998 EERP or the criteria used to determine if he qualified under the program until he received a reply to his inquiry from the Department of The Army. He states that he does not understand why he was neither told nor given the chance to apply for the FY 1998 EERP or any other type of early retirement until now. He believes that he met all of the eligibility requirements and that he should have been retired under the FY 1998 EERP or, at least, informed regarding the program. In support of his application he submits a copy of a memorandum from the United States Military Group (US MILGP), Colombia, Enlisted Promotion Board dated 14 March 1996, indicating that he was recommended for promotion to the rank of staff sergeant (E-6); a copy of his Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active (DD Form 214); a copy of the objective regarding Qualitative Management Program; a copy of his 25 November 1992, enlistment contract; letters from the United States Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) , to a senator’s office regarding his desire to be retired under the FY 1998 EERP; and a message from the Department of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel dated 20 March 1997, which provides information regarding the FY 1998 EERP.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 20 May 1981, he enlisted in the Army for 4 years in the pay grade of E-1. He successfully completed his training as a combat signaler and he reenlisted in the Army on 3 May 1984.
He was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 20 November 1981, to pay grade
E-3 on 1 March 1982, to pay grade E-4 on 15 October 1982.
On 2 March 1987, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, based on a reduction in authorized strength (Early Transition Program). He had completed 5 years, 9 months and 13 days of total active service.
He reentered the Army on 14 February 1989 in the pay grade of E-4 and he successfully completed his training as a signal support systems specialist. On 1 November 1990 he was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 and on 25 November 1992, he reenlisted in the Army for an additional 3 years.
On 14 March 1996, the US MILGP, Enlisted Promotion Board convened to reviewed records and interview personnel for promotion to sergeant and staff sergeant (SSG). The board recommended that the applicant be promoted to SSG; therefore, his name was integrated into the SSG Promotion List.
The Department of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel message dated 20 March 1997 provided general information and eligibility requirements regarding the FY 1998 EERP.
On 1 June 1998, he was honorably discharged in the pay grade of E-5, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 4, based on the completion of his required active service. He had completed 9 years, 3 months and 18 days of total active service during this period of enlistment. Including both periods of his active duty service, he had completed 15 years, 1 month and 1 day of total active service.
On 4 August 1999, this Board denied the applicant’s request to have his prior reserve component service added to his total active service.
On 9 August 2001, The Adjutant General, PERSCOM, notified the applicant that a review of his concerns regarding the FY 1998 EERP revealed that the program was announced; however, it was never actually implemented. He was informed that, for the reason mentioned above, he was not notified of the program when he reached his RCP and separated.
Military Personnel message number 98-045, dated 8 December 1997, provided detailed and specific information and eligibility requirements regarding the FY 1998 EERP. It states, in pertinent part, that soldiers must be a SSG, SSG promotable, sergeant first class (SFC) or SFC promotable with greater than 15 years but less than 20 years of service as of the requested retirement date. The same message provides that there will be no exceptions to policy to the program; therefore, commands will not forward exceptions for considerations.
Army Regulation 601-280, in effect at the time, serves as the authority for establishing retention control points (RCP) for enlisted personnel. The retention control point is the maximum service allowed by grade that an enlisted soldier may serve on active duty. The regulation in effect at the time provided that soldiers serving in the pay grade of E-5 could serve no more than 15 years of active Federal service.
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 applicant was properly separated from the service in accordance with the applicable regulations based on the completion of his required service.
3. The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions. However, the FY 1998 EERP was never actually implemented. He had reached the RCP for an individual serving in the rank of sergeant (SGT) and SGT promotable and; therefore, he was separated from the Army when he completed his required service. Additionally, even if the program had been implemented, he would not have met all of the requirements for retirement under the program because, although he was in a promotable status, at the time of his discharge he was serving in the rank of SGT.
4. To grant the applicant’s request would afford him greater benefits than other individuals with similar circumstances who were also discharged at their RCP.
5. 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
___jhl ___ ___bjl___ __rvo ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065442 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/22 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 338 | 136.0000 |
| 2. 343 | 136.0500 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003279C070208
The evidence of record confirms this Board directed the actions that resulted in the applicant’s promotion to SFC prior to his REFRAD for retirement. The evidence of record further confirms that based on the recommendation of this Board, the applicant was considered for promotion by a STAB, which resulted in his selection for and promotion to SFC, effective 1 September 2001. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006745
On 14 January 1992, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for separation under the Fiscal Year (FY) 1992 Enlisted Voluntary Early Transition Program, effective 25 April 1992, under the Special Separation Benefit (SSB) option. It provided, in pertinent part, that non-disability separation pay was authorized for Regular Army enlisted Soldiers involuntarily separated or released from active duty who were discharged under honorable conditions and who had completed at least 6 years, but...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013316
The applicant's military personnel records show that he enlisted in the United States Army Reserve for a period of 8 years on 23 December 1983. The Court dismissed the applicants claim insofar as he requested that the Court order his retroactive promotion because the Court does not have jurisdiction to review and order military promotion decisions. The period of time (i.e., 3 months) from initial computation and/or recomputation of promotion points to the effective date of promotion point...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120015630
The applicant requests removal of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)), dated 25 February 2011, that is filed in the performance section of his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File, and reinstatement of his rank. On 6 and 26 March 2012, his former station commander responded that promotion to SSG is conducted at the battalion level; he should discuss the matter with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016694
The applicant requests correction of his military records to show he transferred his educational benefits to his dependents under the Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) provision of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. An eligible individual is any member of the Armed Forces on or after 1 August 2009 who, at the time of the approval of the individual's request to transfer entitlement to educational assistance under this section, is eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill and (1) has at least 6 years of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004104516C070208
The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show he was promoted to Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7. Paragraph 4 of Commander, PERSCOM message date time group 071200 April 1992, Subject: Exception to Promotion Policy stated that promotable soldiers who had approved retirements prior to the convening date of those boards as a result of reaching their RCP would not have their retirements revoked or rescinded. Also, paragraph 4 of Commander, PERSCOM message date time group...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010360
Between January and March 2011, there was a Military Personnel (MILPER) Message, Subject: Change to Retention Control Point (RCP) for Enlisted Soldiers Serving in the Regular Army (RA) or Under Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Title 10 Programs, briefed to all career counselors that all RCP dates were going to be effective 1 June 2011 (his ETS date was 19 June 2011). ; (3) first his unit received orders which showed he was "Authorized full separation pay" and after that the DCSS issue came up;...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020911
The applicant requests correction of his records to show he completed 15 years and 29 days of total active service. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. The applicant was not offered early retirement under TERA because he was involuntarily separated due to reaching the RCP for a Soldier in the pay grade of E-5.
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050011796
During the initial active force drawdown period (23 October 1992 and ending on 1 October 1999), the Secretary of the Army could authorize an enlisted member with at least 15 but less than 20 years of creditable service a length of service retirement. The August 1995 message implementing the FY96 Regular Army Enlisted Early Retirement Program did not list eligible MOSs; PERSCOM determined which applications would be approved based upon force structure and the best interest of the Army. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026207
On 24 December 2002, Headquarters, 78th Division, Edison, NJ, published Orders 02-358-00003 ordering the applicant's honorable discharge from the USAR, effective 30 November 2002, after having achieved maximum authorized years of service as a MSG/E-8 (32 years). The applicant was promoted to CSM on 1 December 1997 but his orders were revoked and he received new orders on 3 March 1998 promoting him to SGM/E-9 contingent upon completion of Sergeant Major's Course with 2 years. ...