RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            14 December 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2004106804


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Jennifer L. Prater            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Diane J. Armstrong            |     |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, in effect, that the records of her deceased
former spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show that he
was eligible to draw retired pay.

2.  The applicant states that the FSM died only 3 months and a few days
before his 60th birthday.  He served as a reservist for 20 years and she
feels it is only just, reasonable, and dutiful to award his beneficiaries
his retirement.  If the U. S. Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) had
sent his retirement application in the time frame stated in their pamphlet,
his application would have been in the stage of processing when he died.

3. The applicant also requests that his Servicemen's Group Life Insurance
(SGLI) be investigated to determine why he stopped paying his premiums and
how his retirement date did or did not impact on his signing up for SGLI.

4.  In a letter to "Dear Board Members," the applicant states that recent
information has revealed that the FSM applied for retirement sometime
between 8 July 1989 and 30 October 1989.  Also, he was paid on 30 December
1989 when he should have been in a retired status with Civil Service.  A DA
Form 4536 (Civilian Employees Earnings and Leave Statement) shows he was
paid on 30 December 1989.  Civil Service Retirement and Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) documents in his own hand show that the FSM's last
day of work was 8 July 1989.  He also indicated that he had reapplied for
Reserve duty on 4 October 1989.

5.  The applicant states that it is noteworthy to state that a conversation
with the VA revealed that the FSM's application was denied and his military
records only have him as completing 2 years of military service, which was
his active duty time.  She needs to clarify the fact that their records
used to process his application indicated this time period.

6.  The applicant states that, on his application for Civil Service
Retirement, which is dated 30 October 1989, the FSM stated that his
military retirement pay was being processed.  She questions how, if he was
in a retired status, that he could have been reassigned to the Retired
Reserve effective 12 April 1990 on orders dated 7 May 1990.  She contends
that these various dates in some way adversely affected the FSM's
retirement benefits.  She also feels that his SGLI was affected by this
confusion of dates.  He was paying $4.00 a month for SGLI coverage January
1989 and she is sure that if there was a way for him to retain that
coverage he would have done so.

7.  The applicant states that the 3 months should be waived and his
retirement approved and his retirement awarded to his children since he did
not live to receive it himself.  She thinks it is totally unjust that no
disability provisions were put into place for dual-status reservists who
became disabled before age 60.  The FSM did not retire because he wanted
to.  He was forced to retire because of medical disability.  She asks that
she be granted a hearing to present her concerns.

8.  The applicant provides a letter to Senator Warner dated 26 June 2003;
the FSM's death certificate; his DD Form 214 for the period ending 3 May
1968; orders transferring him to the Retired Reserve; a leave and earnings
statement for the period January 1989; a DA Form 4536 for the pay period
ending              12 August 1989; an undated Notice of Annuity
Adjustment; a family court order dated 9 November 1990; a letter from
Columbia Nephrology Associates, P.A. dated 27 September 1989; a VA Income-
Net Worth and Employment Statement; a Standard Form (SF) 2801 (Application
for Immediate Retirement Civil Service Retirement System); a Request
Pertaining to Military Records; an extract from ARPERCEN Pamphlet 135-2; a
letter from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to Senator
Dole dated 1 August 2003; Senator Dole's 7 August 2003 response to the
applicant; and the FSM's notification of eligibility for retired pay at age
60 (his 20-year letter).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The FSM was born on 2 June 1943.  He was inducted into the Army and
served on active duty from 6 May 1966 through 3 May 1968.  He married the
applicant on 28 May 1968 (they divorced in December 1988).  He was
transferred to the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 4 May 1968.  He was
appointed a warrant officer in military occupational specialty 711A (Unit
Personnel Technician) on 18 December 1979.  He worked until about October
1985 as a Unit Personnel Technician.  He was promoted to Chief Warrant
Officer Three on 18 December 1988.  He actively served in the USAR (earning
at least 50 retirement points per year) through retirement year ending 3
May 1989.

2.  The FSM's 20-year letter is dated 21 April 1989.  The letter informed
the applicant in part, "This is to notify you that, having completed the
required years of service, you will be eligible for retired pay on
application at age 60…" It also informed him, in paragraph 4, "Reserve
soldiers who have completed 20 years of qualifying service for retirement
may be eligible for the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance Program (Retired
Reserve coverage).  An application should be forwarded directly to the
Office of Servicemen's Group Life Insurance…Final determination as to
insurability will be made by that office."

3.  By letter dated 27 September 1989, the FSM's doctor opined that the FSM
had chronic renal failure.

4.  On 30 October 1989, the FSM applied for retirement from the Civil
Service.  In section B, item 2 (Date of final separation (Month, day,
year)) of the SF 2801, he had noted his final date of separation as "07 08
89."  In section G (Information About Your Unmarried Dependent Children),
the FSM listed one child, born on    6 October 1974.  On Schedule B of the
SF 2801, item 1 (If you are receiving or have applied for military retired
pay, compete parts 1 a-e below), the FSM indicated, "Processing Retired
Reserve Pay."  In item 1a (Are you receiving or have you ever applied for
military retired or retainer pay?), the FSM checked the block, "no."  On
Schedule D of the SF 2801, the FSM indicated that he wanted to continue his
basic life insurance.

5.  On 4 April 1990, the FSM completed a DA Form 4851-R (Request for
Reserve Component Assignment or Attachment) and requested transfer to the
Retired Reserve with an effective date of 12 April 1990.  Orders dated 7
May 1990 transferred him to the Retired Reserve effective 12 April 1990.

6.  The FSM died on 19 February 2003.

7.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 12731(a) states that a person is
entitled, upon application, to retired pay if the person is at least 60
years of age, has performed at least 20 years of qualifying service, and
the last eight years of qualifying service have been performed while a
member of a Reserve Component.

8.  Army Regulation 608-2 (Government Life Insurance Servicemen's Group
Life Insurance Veterans' Group Life Insurance United States Government Life
Insurance National Service Life Insurance), in effect at the time,
prescribed policy for the rights, benefits, and privileges available under
the SGLI Program.  The SGLI program is a VA program.  SGLI provided full-
time life insurance coverage for individuals on active duty and was also
available to Soldiers who completed at least 20 years of satisfactory
service creditable for retirement provided they had not received the first
increment of retired pay or reached age 61.  Full-time coverage would
terminate 120 days after transition from duty.  That did not apply if the
Soldier was eligible for transfer to the Retired Reserve for having
completed 20 years of satisfactory service creditable for retirement
purposes.  The Soldier must have sent an application to the Office of
Servicemen's Group Life Insurance (OSGLI).  Soldiers assigned to, or who
upon application would be eligible for the Retired Reserve, were not
insured until OSGLI received the premium.  When an eligible Soldier applied
for SGLI as a Retired Reservist, he or she must have made a new beneficiary
designation and election of coverage.
9.  Army Regulation 15-185 governs operations of the Army Board for
Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).  Paragraph 2-11 of this regulation
states that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR.
The regulation provides that the Director of the ABCMR or the ABCMR may
grant a formal hearing before which the applicant, counsel, and witnesses
may appear whenever justice requires.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  By law, a Reservist who qualifies for and applies for retired pay
begins to receive retired pay upon reaching age 60.  The law does not
provide for a "waiver" to the age requirement.  The FSM's death shortly
before his 60th birthday is regrettable; however, whether or not ARPERCEN
sent him his retirement application in a timely manner is moot because he
never reached age 60.

2.  There is no evidence of record and the applicant fails to provide any
to show that the FSM sent an application to the OSGLI to continue his SGLI
after he was placed in the Retired Reserve.  Since continuation of his SGLI
would have been a purely voluntary action on his part, and there is no
evidence to show that he requested its continuation, it stopped after he
was placed in the Retired Reserve.

3.  The applicant appears to be confusing the FSM's application for Civil
Service retirement with his request for transfer to the Retired Reserve
("the FSM applied for retirement sometime between 8 July 1989 and 30
October 1989").  The ABCMR and the Army have no jurisdiction over the
Office of Personnel Management, which manages the Civil Service retirement
system.

4.  The ABCMR cannot determine what the applicant is referring to when she
states that a conversation with the VA revealed that "the FSM's application
was denied and his military records only have him as completing 2 years of
military service."  The FSM's military records clearly show that he served
almost 2 years on active duty after which he served for about 20 qualifying
years in an active status with the USAR.  The ABCMR and the Army have no
jurisdiction over the VA.

5.  The ABCMR acknowledges that the FSM stated, on his application for
Civil Service retirement, that his military retirement pay "was being
processed."  However, the ABCMR presumes the FSM meant his transfer to the
Retired Reserve was being processed.

6.  The FSM was a Chief Warrant Officer Three.  He had worked for years as
a Unit Personnel Technician, the person unit Soldiers would have gone to
for answers to retirement questions.  His 20-year letter was clear – he
would be eligible for retired pay at age 60.  His 4851-R was clear – he was
requesting transfer to the Retired Reserve, not applying for retired pay.

7.  Although the applicant requested a personal appearance before the
ABCMR, there is no statutory or regulatory right to a formal hearing. The
ABCMR has carefully reviewed the facts in this case and the evidence
provided by the applicant and it was determined that no formal hearing is
required.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jlp___  __le____  __dka___  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 for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.




            __Jennifer L. Prater__
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004106804                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041214                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |136.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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