RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        8 SEPTEMBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040011002


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William Powers                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Meixell                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Larry Olson                   |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct
his  military records by showing that he retired in the rank and pay grade
of colonel, O-6, or in the alternative, correct his records to allow him to
return to active duty in the Army Guard Reserve (AGR) program until he is
able to retire in the grade of O-6.

2.  The applicant states that there are a number of inaccuracies and an
apparent lack of understanding of the issues involved in the ABCMR (Army
Board for Correction of Military Records) findings concerning his case.
The Board failed to address the injustices that occurred and its lack of
awareness of the AGR continuation board process.  He states:

      a.  The Board misstated his rebuttal to the advisory opinion, stating
in effect that the extension board later recognized the problem by
selecting him for colonel from the FY 2004 extension board, when in fact he
stated that the AGR extension board deprived the Army of a DA selected
colonel, and had since recognized this problem, with the FY 2004 extension
board meeting on               1 December 2003 (paragraph 15 in the
Consideration of Evidence section).

      b.  The Board did not adequately address the issues of injustice and
fairness, as it indicated in paragraph 7 of its Discussion and Conclusions
section. The extension board itself has now recognized the injustice by
holding the extension board prior to the O-6 selection board.  The 2003
extension board was not fair.

      c.  The Board’s statement that he was not extended because he had
over 22 years of active federal service and had to be separated unless
further retained by the Secretary of the Army, is false.  The Assistant
Secretary of the Army (ASA) for Manpower and Reserve Affairs has approval
authority for officers selected to serve beyond 22 years of active federal
service.  He states that he was not non-selected as the ABCMR inferred,
simply because he had over       22 years of service and needed a further
waiver.  The ASA had the responsibility to sign off on the results, just as
the Chief of the Army Reserve had for those officers with less than 22
years of active federal service.   e

      d.  The ABCMR did not fully investigate the timing or the fairness of
the (extension) board.  He requests that a full investigation into the
matters indicated in his appeal be conducted.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of the ABCMR proceedings of 21 September
2004.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR2004103092, on 21 September 2004.

2.  The 2003 AFS (Active Federal Service) Extension Board did not recommend
that the applicant be extended on active duty in the AGR program.  The
Chief, Army Reserve approved the results and the applicant was notified on
27 August 2003, the results apparently having been published on 26 June
2003.  The applicant had previously been approved for an AFS extension
until 30 November 2003.

3.  The applicant, as he acknowledges, was considered and not selected for
promotion to colonel on three previous DA Reserve Components AMEDD Colonel
Selection Boards.  Immediately subsequent to the results of the        2003
AFS Extension Board the applicant requested retirement, apparently
convinced that he would again be a non-select for promotion to colonel, and
if selected, would not be able to continue in the AGR program for the
length of time necessary to retire in the pay grade of O-6.  The orders
effecting his retirement were published on 26 June 2003 with an effective
date of 31 August 2003.  He had over 22 years of active federal service.

4.  As indicated in the 21 September 2004 Board proceedings the applicant
was selected for promotion to colonel by the 2003 DA Reserve Components
AMEDD Colonel Selection Board, the results of which were released on 30
October 2003. The applicant, at that time, had been transferred to the
retired list.

5.  Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes policy and procedures for selecting
and promoting officers of the Army Reserve, and states in pertinent part
that AGR officers selected by a mandatory board, but who cannot be promoted
due to strength and/or position limitations will be given two options –
voluntarily leave the AGR program and accept promotion in the higher grade,
or remain in the current grade in the AGR program.  Officers who remain in
the AGR program will be considered to be in an indefinite involuntary delay
status and will remain on the promotion list.

6.  The Army Human Resources Command web site shows that the FY 2004
Colonel, Reserve Components AMEDD Selection Board results were released on
13 January 2005, and that the FY 2005 AGR AS (active service) Extension
Board results were released on 18 April 2005.  That web site also indicates
that the FY 2004 Captain, APL (Army Promotion List) Selection Board results
were released on 1 March 2005, and the FY 2005 Captain and Major Reserve
Components AMEDD Selection Board results were released on 19 April 2005.

7.  The web site shows that promotion board results were released in
December 2004 for the FY 2004 Colonel and Lieutenant Colonel Reserve
Components APL Board, in November 2004 for the FY 2004 Lieutenant Colonel
Reserve Components AMEDD Board, and in August 2004 for FY 2004 Chief
Warrant Officers Reserve Components Selection Boards.

8.  Army Regulation 15-185 prescribes the policies and procedures for
correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through
the ABCMR, and states in pertinent part that the ABCMR will decide cases on
the evidence of record.  It is not an investigative body.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s arguments of injustice and unfairness is predicated on
the fact that an extension board did not recommend that he be extended in
the AGR program; however, a promotion board that met during approximately a
similar time period selected him for promotion to colonel.  Thus, the
extension board’s recommendation was inherently unfair.  He has provided no
evidence to support this contention.

2.  He states that the timing of the two boards was wrong and unfair,
inferring that had the results of the promotion board been published prior
to the convening of the extension board, then his extension in the AGR
program would have been assured.  He has provided no evidence to support
this inference.

3.  He states that the extension board has now recognized the injustice of
the timing of the boards.  The Human Resources Command web site does show
that the FY 2004 Colonel, Reserve Components AMEDD Selection Board results
were released on 13 January 2005, fully three months prior to the release
of the results of the FY 2005 AGR AS extension board, seemingly supporting
his contention that the extension board has recognized the injustice of the
timing of the two boards, and in effect, the injustice done to him.  This,
however, would not affect officers whose promotion results were published
during the same time period as those results of the extension board.
Additionally, his contention would appear to assume that those selected for
promotion would also be selected for extension, an unproven assumption.


4.  The applicant’s argument that he would have continued to serve, that is
not submit his retirement papers, had he known he was selected for
promotion to colonel, may well be so; however, his selection does not
necessarily guarantee promotion and retirement in the grade of colonel.
The applicant requested retirement.  His request was approved.  The fact
that the results of the colonel selection board were published subsequent
to his retirement is moot.

5.  This Board notes the applicant’s contention that the statement by the
         21 September 2004 Board in the last sentence of paragraph 15 of
its proceedings is incorrect and does not make sense.  This statement is
erroneous, but does not impact on the Board’s findings and recommendation,
nor indicate that the Board did not understand the facts of his case, nor
that it was biased in making its decision.

6.  The Board has looked at the facts of this case and considered all the
available evidence and has noted the applicant’s arguments, in his initial
application and in this, his request for reconsideration.  The Board,
however, as indicated above, is not an investigative body as requested by
the applicant.

7.  The applicant has not shown that because he was selected for promotion
by a DA Reserve Components Selection Board, the recommendation by an AGR
continuation board that he not be extended was unfair or unjust.

8.  Consequently, his request to correct his  military records by showing
that he retired in the rank and pay grade of colonel, O-6, or in the
alternative, correct his records to allow him to return to active duty in
the Army Guard Reserve (AGR) program until he is able to retire in the
grade of O-6, is denied.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___WP__  ___JM __  __LO  ___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20004103092, dated 21 September
2004.




                                  _____William Powers_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040011002                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050908                                |
|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.       |102.02                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]