RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:      14 December 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002249


      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             |
|     |Ms. Stephanie Thompkins           |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Slone                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Leonard G. Hassell            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |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, reinstatement in the Individual
Ready Reserve (IRR).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that reinstatement in the IRR will
allow attendance at an officer basic course (OBC) to fulfill his education
requirements.  When he joined the Utah Army National Guard (UTARNG) in
1996, they applied the "Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA)
Implementation Guidelines Handbook," as guidance to the constructive credit
of his naval background and experience, for fulfilling the OBC
requirements.  When his promotion packet for first lieutenant went to the
National Guard Bureau (NGB), the constructive credit was denied.  He was
then transferred to the United States Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group
(Reinforcement).  In 2004, upon requesting transfer to a troop program unit
(TPU), which had approved sending him to OBC and would have taken care of
the missing qualification, the Human Resources Command (HRC) initiated his
honorable discharge from the IRR, prior to his transfer taking place.  He
neither requested a discharge nor put in a request to resign his
commission.  He had only requested a transfer to a unit that had been
willing to bring him on.

3.  He also states that when his promotion packet was assembled in 1998 and
sent to the NGB for review, they disagreed with the initial assessment, and
determined that he had too much time in grade and had exceeded the time to
complete the OBC educational requirements.  He was not offered the
opportunity to attend OBC while in the UTARNG.  The UTARNG then honorably
discharged him into the IRR on 4 August 1998.  During April and May 2004,
he initiated contact among the units identified as having vacancies and
found a unit willing to bring him on and schedule him for the next OBC.
Apparently, upon the unit's request to transfer him, the HRC then initiated
the process to have him discharged from the IRR, he is assuming, based upon
the fact that he did not have his OBC qualification.  The HRC Inspector
General (IG) recommended he apply to the Army Board for Correction of
Military Records (ABCMR).

4.  The applicant provides copies of his official military personnel file;
a response from the Chief, Personnel Services Division, NGB; a response
from the Chief, Personnel Policy, Programs and Manpower Division, NGB; a
response from the Office of The IG, HRC, St. Louis, Missouri; his Course of
Study in Naval Subjects, Naval Surface Warfare Division Officer Course,
Combat Cargo Indoctrination course completion certificates; and several
electronic mail correspondence between the HRC and himself.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show he was appointed in the UTARNG as
a second lieutenant effective 26 March 1996, with a date of rank of
27 March 1994. He was appointed with prior naval commissioned service.

2.  On 18 March 1997, the UTARNG forwarded a request to the NGB for
extension of Federal Recognition and promotion to first lieutenant for the
applicant.

3.  On 25 October 1997, the UTARNG forwarded a request to the NGB for the
18-week Surface Warfare Officer School to be considered equivalent to the
OBC for promotion to first lieutenant for the applicant.

4.  On 25 October 1997, the Chief, Personnel Services Division, NGB,
returned the recommendation for promotion of applicant to the UTARNG
without action.  He stated that the course completion certificate enclosed
with the promotion recommendation was not equivalent to an OBC, which was
needed for promotion to first lieutenant.  The 18 week Surface Warfare
Officer School listed on the applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) may be equivalent to an OBC.  He
stated that in order to determine if that course could be used, the
applicant must request a determination through the Officer Policy Branch,
NGB.

5.  On 6 March 1998, the Chief, Personnel Policy, Programs and Manpower,
NGB, disapproved constructive credit for the OBC for the applicant.  He
stated that attendance at the Surface Warfare Officer School was not
substitutable for any US Army OBC.  In addition, based on the information
provided, the applicant had exceeded the maximum allowable time to become
fully qualified (42) and must be separated.  He also stated that no waivers
were authorized.

6.  The applicant was separated from the UTARNG as a second lieutenant
effective 4 August 1998 for failure to complete a branch qualification
course.  He was transferred to the IRR.

7.  He was separated from the IRR effective 28 June 2004, under the
provisions of Army Regulation 135-175.

8.  On 8 September 2004, the IG, HRC, advised the applicant that after a
review of his request, there was no evidence of fraud or obvious error.  A
Soldier who received actual or constructive delivery of orders discharging
him/her from the

service will not be revoked after the effective date of discharge unless
the revocation is a written confirmation of verbal orders actually issued
before the effective date of discharge.  Therefore, the only administrative
avenue available was to apply to the ABCMR.  The applicant was advised of
his right to apply to ABCMR.  He was further advised that his application
to the ABCMR in no way implied there was an error or injustice in his case,
nor did his submission of an application assure that a hearing would be
held or that favorable action would be taken.

9.  Army Regulation 135-155, prescribes the policies and procedures for the
promotion of Reserve and ARNG officers.  This regulation specifies that an
officer in the grade of second lieutenant will be considered for promotion
without review by a promotion selection board.  Promotion to first
lieutenant requires completion of 2 years time in grade and completion of a
branch OBC within 42 months after their original appointment.  The
officer's records will be screened to determine eligibility for promotion
to first lieutenant far enough in advance to permit promotion on the date
promotion service is completed.  The promotion authorities will ensure all
requirements are met before announcing a promotion.

10.  Army Regulation 135-155, also specifies that an officer retained in an
active status after being found not qualified for promotion to first
lieutenant may be reconsidered for promotion if the reason for
disqualification is resolved.  The officer, if not discharged or promoted
sooner, will be discharged no later than 18 months from the date on which
the officer is first found not qualified for promotion, but in no case
later than 42 months after the officer's original appointment.  Discharge
will be made without regard to remaining service obligation.

11.  Army Regulation 135-175, in pertinent part, prescribes the policies
and procedures for the discharge of Army Reserve officers.  Chapter 4 of
this regulation specifies that members of the Army Reserve will be removed
from an active status for failure to complete the military education
requirements in Army Regulation 135-155 with or without the officer's
consent regardless of the length of commissioned service.  Removal will be
by discharge, transfer to the Retired Reserve, if eligible and requested by
the member, or if eligible, transfer to the Control Group (Inactive).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not
entitled to reinstatement in the IRR.  He has not shown error or injustice
for the relief he is now requesting.
2.  The applicant's contentions have been noted; however, he was not
educationally qualified for promotion to first lieutenant.  The applicant
was separated from the UTARNG for failure to complete a branch OBC or its
equivalent.  He was advised as early as October 1997, that his Surface
Warfare Officer School was not a substitute for any US Army OBC.  He was
also advised that there were no education waivers authorized for the OBC.
His removal from the UTARNG and the IRR was required by regulations.
Without exception, all officers in the grade of second lieutenant will be
discharged, with or without the officer's consent, regardless of the length
of commissioned service, for failure to complete the military education
requirements within 42 months after their original appointment.  Removal
will be by discharge, transfer to the Retired Reserve, if eligible and
requested by the member, or if eligible, transfer to the Control Group
(Inactive).

3.  The applicant's request for award of equivalent credit for completion
of his naval officer school was denied and he failed to insure well in
advance that the naval course would be considered equivalent to the Army’s
course.  The applicant knew, or should have known, that completion of an
Army OBC was a long standing regulatory requirement for promotion to first
lieutenant.  The general requirements and workings of the system are widely
known and specific details such as RCSB dates, promotion zones, and
educational requirements are widely published in official, quasi-official
and unofficial publications, and in official communications.  The applicant
needed to insure, well in advance, that he could complete the mandatory
educational requirements and he has not satisfactorily shown that he was
prevented from doing so.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_MJF___  _LGH____  __JS____  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.




                                  ______John Slone________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050002249                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051214                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |102.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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