RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:    .


      BOARD DATE:       19 October 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050000142


      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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Barbara J. Ellis              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert Rogers                 |     |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 record to show he was transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR)
on
5 March 1990; that his retirement points be adjusted; and that he be
considered for direct appointment as a Quartermaster Corps commissioned
officer or warrant officer.

2.  The applicant states that his separation orders provide that he was to
be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) with a Reserve
obligation terminal date of 3 February 1994.  He contends that Commanding
Officer, Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) had an obligation to
insure that a break in service did not occur.  He also argues that the 26
March 1997 retirement points update resulted from an inquiry on his part
and that the Reserve obligation terminal date of 3 February 1994 should be
the start date for the Board's 3 year statute of limitations and that his
1997 inquiry about retirement points constitutes a timely action on his
part.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his 9 November 1989 separation orders
256-22, issued by Headquarters Army Support Command, Hawaii and a 26 March
1997 Army Reserve retirement points update.

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
AR2004105561, on 30 November 2004.

2.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records)
provides the policy and guidance for this Board.  Paragraph 2-15 provides
that an applicant may request the ABCMR to reconsider a Board decision.  If
the ABCMR receives the request within 1 year of the ABCMR's action and if
the ABCMR has not previously reconsidered the matter, the ABCMR staff will
review the request to determine if it contains evidence (including, but not
limited to, any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted) that
was not in the record at the time of the ABCMR's prior consideration.  If
new evidence has been submitted, the request will be submitted to the ABCMR
for its determination of whether the new evidence is sufficient to
demonstrate material error or injustice. If no new evidence is found, the
ABCMR staff will return the application to the applicant without action.

3.  The documents currently submitted were contained in his records at the
time of the original submission; however, they were not specifically
addressed in the previous case because they were irrelevant to that case.
His current submission constitutes new argument and, as such, requires
consideration by the Board.

4.  On 7 December 1989 Headquarters Army Support Command, Hawaii issued
Orders 276-20 which revoked Orders 256-22, ordered the applicant discharged
and directed his transfer to the transition point on 5 March 1990.

5.  The 26 March 1997 Reserve retirements point update shows that the
applicant was discharged from the Regular Army on 5 March 1990.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  As noted in the original case the applicant was appropriately
discharged.  He was not in the IRR and ARPERCEN had no obligation to
prevent a break in service.

2.  Enlistment/reenlistment is essentially a process that starts with the
enlistee.  It is unreasonable to argue years after the fact that the Army
had an obligation to insure that a break in service did not occur.

3.  If indeed the 1997 retirement points update resulted for the
applicant's desire to continue in Reserve service, then he should have
enlisted at that time.

4.  There being no basis for granting relief as it pertains to his alleged
service in the IRR, there is also none to show follow-on service,
promotions and appointments.

4.  The applicant's contention about the Board's 3-year statute of
limitation is moot.  The Board does not deny cases simply for failure to
timely file.  Failure to timely file is regularly excused in order to grant
relief when relief is warranted.  The original Record of Proceedings
clearly reflects that this case was considered on the merits and the
failure to timely file was cited as one of the reasons for not granting the
required relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__HOF __  __BJE__  __RB____  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 AR2004105561, dated 30 November 2004.




                                  __     Barbara J. Ellis_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000142                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051018                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |135.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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