RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        14 DECEMBER 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050017153


      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. Rene' R. Parker               |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Slone                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael 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 that her separation date be corrected to show
that she was separated on 10 July 2005 vice 31 July 2004 thus allowing her
to receive retirement pay at age 60.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was illegally discharged with
nearly
20 years of military service.  She suggests the error occurred because of
the incompetence of an un-named individual or element.

3.  The applicant provides copies of documents associated with her
separation, her Army National Guard Retirement Points History Statement,
and copies of documents showing her attempt to correct the situation via
the Washington Army National Guard.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant, a military
physician, began accumulating creditable service for retired pay in 1974 as
a member of the United States Navy.  She was honorably discharged from the
United States Navy in September 1988. She was credited with 14 years, 6
months, and 2 days of qualifying service as a member of the United States
Navy.

2.  Between 1988 and 1999 the applicant accumulated only 1 year, 7 months,
and 22 days of qualifying service as a member of the Washington Army
National Guard.  On 26 January 1999 the applicant again became an active
participant with the Washington Army National Guard.  Her retirement year
ending (RYE) was established as 10 July.

3.  The applicant was promoted to pay grade O-6 on 12 March 2003.

4.  On 10 July 2003 orders were issued by the State of Washington
separating the applicant with an honorable characterization of service
effective 30 June 2003 under the provisions of National Guard Regulation
635-100, paragraph 5a(2).  Although at the time of her June 2003 separation
the applicant had accumulated 20 years, 1 month, and 14 days of qualifying
service for retired pay purposes, only the last 4 qualifying years of
service were as a member of a Reserve component.

5.  Her National Guard separation document indicated the applicant was
discharged without personal notice, that she was not available for
signature, and

that she had 29 years, 3 months, and 7 days of total military service, of
which
20 years, 1 month, and 14 days qualified for retired pay at age 60.

6.  National Guard Regulation 635-100, paragraph 5a(2), states that except
as otherwise indicated, officers in the grade of O-6 who are not earlier
removed from an active status will be removed from an active status in the
Army National Guard of the United States on the date that is 30 days after
completion of 30 total years of service or on the fifth anniversary of the
officer's date of appointment in that grade.

7.  Title 10, United States Code, sections 12731 through 12738 governing
the granting of retired pay to Soldiers and former Reserve Component
Soldiers and notes that to be eligible for retired pay an individual need
not have a military status at the time of application, but must have
attained age 60, completed a minimum of 20 years of qualifying service,
and, in the applicant's situation, served the last 6 years of her
qualifying service as a Reserve component Soldier.

8.  On 21 January 2005 the applicant's separation orders were amended to
show she was separated on 31 July 2004, which was still 1 year shy of the
requirement to have the last 6 years of her qualifying service as a Reserve
component Soldier and would still have not made her eligible for retired
pay at age 60, in spite of having sufficient qualifying service for retired
pay.  However, as a result of the 2004 separation action the applicant
would then have met the 30 years of service for separation under National
Guard Regulation 635-100, paragraph 5a(2), which was the basis for her
separation.

9.  Documents provided by the applicant note that she was never counseled
regarding retirement and never submitted a request for separation.  She
notes that she was told her separation would not impact on her eligibility
for retired pay at age 60.  She also submits documents indicating that she
has been attempting to correct this injustice since 2004.

10.  In the processing of this application, an advisory opinion was
obtained from the National Guard Bureau which recommended the applicant's
request to have her separation date changed from 31 July 2004 to 10 July
2005 be granted.  They also recommended that her Retirement Points History
Statement be corrected to reflect service until 10 July 2005 and that the
Washington Army National Guard provide the applicant with the 20 years of
service letter.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the advisory opinion
and complimented the thorough research but made no additional statements.


11.  A staff member of the Board coordinated with the NGB regarding the
applicant’s Retirement Points History Statement.  The NGB administratively
corrected the statement to reflect the retirement year ending 10 July 2004,
with only 15 membership points awarded, based on their order changing the
applicant’s separation date.   Further review brought to question the
retirement year shown as 4 March 1989 through 23 March 1990.  This period
as posted exceeds the 12 month period by 20 days for a total of 60
retirement points credited and is shown as a qualifying year.  Retirement
years ending in 2000 reflects 88 retirement points, 2001 reflects 80
retirement points, 2002 reflects 95 retirement points, and 2003 reflects 93
retirement points, for a total of 5 of the last 6 qualifying years in a
Reserve component she requires to qualify for Reserve retirement.
Retirement year 1999 reflects a total of 46 retirement points. It was
determined at this time that the appropriate relief would be to transfer 4
retirement points from those excess points already earned in retirement
year 2003 to 1999 resulting in the needed sixth qualifying year, rather
than add an additional year to 10 July 2005 with award of 50 retirement
points as was originally recommended.

12.  National Guard Regulation 635-100, paragraph 6b (1), provided for the
retention of medical corps officers beyond the mandatory removal date
provided he/she was otherwise fully qualified, but not beyond age 60.  The
applicant will reach age 60 in 2012.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence available to the Board suggests the applicant was
separated from the Army National Guard because officials issuing her
separation documents believed that she met the eligibility requirements for
receipt of retired pay at age 60 and that she had reached her mandatory
removal date.

2.  While the applicant may have accumulated the required 20 yeas of
qualifying service, her last 6 years of qualifying service was not as a
member of a Reserve component.  At the time of her 2003 separation she had
only met 4 of the 6 required years.  The subsequent amendment of her
separation date to 2004 still left her short of meeting the 6 year
requirement.

3.  There are regulatory provisions for the retention of medical corps
officers beyond their mandatory removal date and that provision would have
enabled the applicant to remain in an active status beyond 2004 in order to
meet the 6 year service requirement.  Had she been aware that her retired
pay was jeopardized because she failed to meet that 6 year gate, clearly
she would have requested an extension, rather than to merely accept the
mandatory removal action.

4.  The posting of the applicant’s retirement year for 4 March 1989 – 23
March 1990 clearly confused the issue that this was a qualifying Reserve
component year and has disadvantaged the applicant.

5.  It is noted in the advisory opinion that it would be appropriate to
correct the applicant's Retirement Points History Statement to reflect
service until 10 July 2005.  After further review it appears that a better
way to correct the applicant’s record would be to count 5 of the last
qualifying Reserve component years as the periods ending 23 March 1990, 10
July 2000, 10 July 2001, 10 July 2002, 10 July 2003 and to transfer 4 of
the excess retirement points from retirement year 2003 to retirement
year1999 resulting in the applicant having the last 6 qualifying years in a
Reserve component and now eligible for issuance of a 20 year letter
certifying her eligibility for retired pay at age 60.

6.  Based on the above conclusion it would not be appropriate to correct
that applicant’s separation date to 10 July 2005.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

___JS___  ___LE __  ___MF __  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board
recommends that the state Army National Guard records and the Department of
the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

      a.  showing the applicant’s last 5 qualifying Reserve component years
as the periods ending 23 March 1990, 10 July 2000, 10 July 2001, 10 July
2002, 10 July 2003;





      b.  transferring 4 of the excess retirement points from retirement
year 2003 to retirement year 1999 for a total of 50 retirement points
resulting in the applicant having the last 6 qualifying years in a Reserve
component required; and


      c.  issuing her the 20 year letter certifying her eligibility for
retired pay at age 60.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
adjustment of her separation date to 10 July 2005.





                                  _______John Slone________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050017153                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061214                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |PARTIAL GRANT                           |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |136.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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