| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
2. The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by revoking his discharge from the United States Army Reserve (USAR); effecting his promotion to colonel (COL); and extending his mandatory removal date (MRD).
3. The applicant states, in effect, that had he been before a promotion board using the proper year criteria in a timely fashion, he would have been identified for promotion earlier. He claims that had he been identified for promotion at the proper time, a waiver of his MRD would have surely been approved. He further states that the Army erred in not following proper procedure, which resulted in an injustice being served upon him by denying him the ability to serve his country, and further causing him past, present, and future financial injustice.
4. The Memorandum of Consideration (MOC) of the Board’s 21 May 2002 review of the case (AR2002067465) is incorporated herein by reference as if wholly set forth.
5. The applicant’s record shows that he was appointed a second lieutenant on
9 September 1969, served on active duty until 1 April 1983, at which time he was released because of his non-selection for promotion. He transferred to the USAR and continued to serve in an active Reserve status in some capacity until being discharged on 9 December 1997, upon reaching his MRD as a lieutenant colonel (LTC).
6. In August 2001, the applicant was notified that he had been selected for promotion to COL by a Standby Advisory Board (STAB) that had convened on 17 April 2001. He was selected for promotion to COL under the criteria used by the 1997 Reserve Component (RC) Promotion Selection Board. This promotion board had convened on 28 May 1997, recessed on 13 June 1997, and the results were approved by the President on 15 November 1997.
7. In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from a personnel official of the ARPERSCOM Transition and Separations Branch. It explained that the applicant had been honorably discharged from the USAR on 9 December 1997 because he had reached mandatory removal based on the completion of 28 years of commissioned service and had not been selected for promotion. It further stated that the applicant was selected for promotion to COL by a STAB that convened on
17 April 2001, under the criteria used by the 1997 promotion board. It further indicated that because the STAB that selected the applicant had convened after the date he would have reached the MRD for the higher grade, COL, ARPERSCOM did not have the authority to revoke his discharge orders and therefore to extend his MRD. This opinion contained a recommendation that authority be granted to revoke the applicant’s discharge orders in order to allow him to either transfer to the Retired Reserve or to serve an additional six months in the higher rank and then transfer to the Retired Reserve in the higher grade.
8. The applicant was provided a copy of the ARPERSCOM advisory opinion in order to have the opportunity to respond, which he did on 23 December 2002. In his rebuttal, the applicant states that although the position taken in the advisory opinion is an improvement over previous positions, it falls far short of recommending the length of commissioned service that was denied him. He claims that five years of commissioned service was denied him between 1 April 1990 and 5 November 1995. He claims his promotion to LTC lead to his removal from a Troop Program Unit based on the lack of an authorized position for his new grade. He claims that the thrust of his initiatives have been to be allowed heretofore denied time for service to his country in an active status. He concludes that the suggestion that he be granted six months of service before transfer to the Retired Reserve falls far short of the of the 5 ½ years of service he claims he was denied since 9 September 1969.
9. The Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act provides for the mandatory removal from the USAR because of age or length of service. It states, in pertinent part, that COLs (to include LTCs selected for promotion to colonel) will be removed from active status not later than the first day of the month after the month completing 30 years of commissioned service. LTCs (not recommended for promotion to COL) will be removed the first day of the month after the month completing 28 years of commissioned service.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he was effectively denied 5 ½ years of service since 1969, but it finds insufficient evidence to support this assertion. However, the Board does find merit in his claim that his MRD would have been extended to 30 years had he been selected for promotion to COL in a timely fashion.
2. The Board originally denied the applicant’s request because the promotion list he would have been on if he had been selected in 1997, was not approved until 15 November 1997, after he had reached his MRD of 1 October 1997. The Board finds this was a valid outcome based on his established MRD.
3. However, the Board also notes that the applicant was not actually discharged from the USAR until 9 December 1997, which was after the date the 1997 promotion board results were approved by the President, 15 November 1997. Therefore, it finds that equity relief is warranted on this issue.
4. In the opinion of the Board, had the applicant been selected for promotion to COL by the 1997 promotion board, he would have been considered in a promotable status and his MRD would have changed to 1 October 1999, the first day of the month after the month he reached 30 years of commissioned service.
5. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, correcting the applicant’s records as recommended below would correct an error or rectify an injustice.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by revoking the 9 December 1997 USAR discharge of the individual concerned; by showing he was promoted to COL, effective 15 November 1997; by showing he was transferred to the USAR Retired Reserve on 1 October 1999, upon reaching his MRD as a COL; and by providing him any USAR service credit due as a result.
2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE:
__JNS__ __MHM _ __ JTM __ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
_ John N. Slone _
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
| CASE ID | AR2002079946 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | AR2002067465 |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/03/25 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1997/12/09 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | MRD |
| BOARD DECISION | Grant |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 310 | 131.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073471C070403
The applicant’s military records show that the applicant was commissioned as an officer in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 11 June 1972, at the age of 21 years. He should have been considered by the 1998 COL promotion board as well as the 1999 promotion board. Under the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA), if he is selected for promotion to COL under the 1998 or 1999 criteria, his MRD would be extended to 30 years of commissioned service resulting in an MRD of 10 July 2002.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074577C070403
The applicant’s military records show that on 7 December 1982, she was commissioned a second lieutenant (2LT) in the Army Nurse Corps (ANC) of the United States Army Reserve (USAR), and that she is currently assigned to the Retired Reserve and is receiving retired pay. By regulation, Retired Reserve members who were removed from active status are ineligible for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was selected for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057264C070420
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that at the time he was transferred to the United States Army Reserve (USAR) Retired Reserve he was unaware of the policy that would have allowed him to request a waiver to continue to serve in the active USAR until his mandatory retirement date (MRD) of 27 October 1993, which was authorized under the provisions of exception 13, paragraph 7-12, Army Regulations 140-10. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was promoted to LTC on 4 June 1990, and that he...
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 | CY2004 | 2004100643C070208
In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the US Army Human Resources Command – St. Louis which recommends that the applicant be granted relief by reinstating him to active status in the USAR, or giving him credit through 1 December 2002 – the anniversary of his 30th year of service and his MRD as a COL – and placing him in the Retired Reserve as a COL. In order to correct the injustice created by the applicant’s erroneous non-selection to COL and subsequent...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071739C070403
The WOMT denied this request because the RDMS indicated that the applicant was assigned to the Retired Reserve as a LTC. In its earlier consideration of this case, the Board concluded that due to numerous errors in dates in the appointment process and transfers among the RC between June 1996 and February 1999, the applicant was effectively prevented from completing his RC warrant officer training requirements within the prescribed period, which by regulation was three years. The Board in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007694
The applicant requests, in effect, that his Mandatory Removal Date (MRD) be adjusted to 1 July 2005, the maximum date allowed for Colonel (COL) instead of 1 July 2003, the MRD for Lieutenant Colonel (LTC). As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. voiding his transfer to the Retired Reserve effective 1 July 2003; b. crediting him with 46 inactive duty points, 15 membership points and 26 active duty points for a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026100
The applicant requests, in effect, * education waivers with consecutive promotion corrections due to the findings of Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Docket Number AR20070001144, dated 2 August 2007 * a 4-year extension of his mandatory removal date (MRD) to allow him to qualify for a 20-year nonregular retirement 2. On 2 August 2007, the ABCMR granted his request for correction of his records as follows: * determined his 19 April 1996 DA Form 5074-1-R was incorrect *...
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 | CY2012 | 20120000274
On 6 August 1998, the Director, Personnel Actions and Services, USAR Personnel Command, St. Louis, MO notified the applicant that he had completed the required years of service to be eligible for retired pay at age 60 (20-Year Letter). He was transferred in the Retired Reserve in May 1999. Evidence also shows the only reason the applicant's Retired Reserve status changed was because he desired to pursue an active duty career in the USAF which would both help with their need for dental...