| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Separation pay.
APPLICANT STATES: That he did not receive separation pay as an other than Regular Army officer upon being twice non-selected for promotion by the Fiscal Year 2000 selection board.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he was released from active duty on 4 November 2000 at Fort Myer, Virginia, and transferred to the Army Reserve Support Center at Arlington, Virginia. He had 11 years, 6 months, and 27 days of active service. The authority for his release is shown as Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 2-5 or 2-11, and the narrative reason for separation as miscellaneous/general reasons. His separation code on his DD Form 214 is MND.
The applicant's Officer Evaluation Report for the 5-month period ending on 31 October 2000, a REFRAD (relief from active duty) report shows that he was a captain, assigned to the Center for Army Analysis (a field operating agency of the Chief of Staff of the Army) at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
The applicant's Officer Evaluation Report immediately following, for the period 1 November 2000 through 31 October 2001 shows that the applicant was a major with a date of rank of 27 June 2001, who was assigned to the Army Reserve Control Group (AGR) (Active Guard/Reserve) with the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve.
A 26 July 2001 Total Army Personnel Command memorandum shows that the applicant was promoted as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army in an AGR status effective and with a date of rank of 27 June 2001.
There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided any, to show that he was a two time non-selection for promotion to major.
Department of the Army Circular 635-92-1 outlines eligibility criteria for separation pay. Separation pay is a contingency payment for an officer who is career committed but for whom a full military career may be denied. It is designed to encourage him to pursue his ambition, knowing that if he is denied a full career under the competitive system, he can count on an adequate readjustment pay to ease his reentry into civilian life. A soldier who is discharged or released from active duty at his own request is not eligible for separation pay.
Army Regulation 600-8-24 provides for the discharge or release of officers on active duty. Paragraph 2-5 of that regulation prescribes the rules for processing voluntary REFRAD due to personal reasons, and states that an officer may request REFRAD whenever such action is considered appropriate. Paragraph 2-11 prescribes the rules for processing voluntary REFRAD essential to national interest, and states than an officer may request REFRAD to provide more valuable service (in civilian capacity) to the nation. The request must be motivated by national interest and not personal desire.
Army Regulation 635-5-1 provides for separation codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. The regulation depicts the separation code, MND, as a voluntary REFRAD for miscellaneous/general reasons.
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. The applicant is not entitled to separation pay. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.
2. 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 that requirement.
3. 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
__MKP__ __WTM__ __TEO __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003083382 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030729 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 128.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050008478
The applicant states, in effect, that up until the time of his separation all officers had been receiving separation pay. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was separated under the provisions of paragraph 2-5 or 2-11, Army Regulation 600-8-24, for "Miscellaneous/General Reasons" on 29 January 2000. Notwithstanding the Interim Change to the DoDFMR provided by the applicant, the evidence confirms that the applicant was not authorized separation pay at the time of his release from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070712C070402
In support of his application, the applicant provides the following documents: Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM), St. Louis, Missouri, letter Subject: Submission of Voluntary Retirement, dated 1 March 2000; retirement orders, dated 28 August 2000; request to rescind retirement actions and for extension on AFS with chain of command endorsements, dated 6 September 2000; separation document (DD Form 214), dated 31 January 2001; Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), St. Louis, letter...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008255C070205
Scott Faught | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. He states the discharge was improper according to Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) and Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) for a medical administrative discharge and has resulted in inaccurate information in his personal file. He states that Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 2-31...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083316C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be given separation pay. Absent evidence to show that the applicant formally declined SELCON, the Board must presume, based on the authority for his separation, that the applicant submitted a voluntary request for REFRAD prior to receiving notification, one way or the other, regarding SELCON status.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040006152C070208
On 17 July 2002, PERSCOM approved the applicant’s request for release from active duty (REFRAD) under the provisions of chapter 2, Section II, Army Regulation 600-8-24. Item 25 (Authority for Separation) contains an entry showing he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Paragraph 2-5 and Item 28 lists the narrative reason for his separation as miscellaneous/general reasons. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The evidence of record confirms the PERSCOM directive that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016747
In an exchange of email messages between the applicant, the applicant's commander, and his HRC-St. Louis personnel manager, the personnel manager questions the recommendation to disapprove the applicant's request for reenlistment, to which the commander states that he disapproved the exception to policy to reenlist in the AGR program and, as a commander, he is not required by regulation to state his reasons. The evidence of record shows that the applicant entered the AGR program in May 1999...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009952
His application was approved, and he was ordered to active duty in the AGR Program with a reporting date of 5 September 1995. Army Regulation 135-155 further provided that promotions would be made only on the recommendation of a promotion selection board. Because promotion boards are not permitted to disclose the reasons for non-selection for promotion, there is no record of why the applicant failed to be selected for promotion by the 1999 and 2000 LTC DA Reserve Components Selection...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078132C070215
The applicant states, in effect, that he was twice nonselected for promotion to the rank of major and was offered selective continuation on active duty. With the initiative of selective continuation boards, the applicant was selected for continuation when the applicable laws provided that other than Regular Army officers (OTRA) who declined continuation on active duty were considered voluntary separations and thus were not entitled to separation pay. Accordingly, captains who declined...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03098139C070212
She would have had nearly 4 years of active service as a member of the United States Air Force, and 6 more months of active duty while serving in the Office, Chief Army Reserve between 1998 and 1999. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Department of the Army Circular 635-92-1, which outlines the policies and procedures for entitlement to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068472C070402
After review of the applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), the QMP Board barred the applicant from further reenlistment in the USAR AGR program. Records show that a Department of the Army QMP Board considered the applicant's OMPF and determined that he should be barred from further reenlistment in the USAR AGR program. Therefore, the Board determined that the applicant's records along with his appeal should be reconsidered by the AR-PERSCOM QMP Appeals Board.