RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        24 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060002228


      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. G. E. Vandenberg              |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Carmen Duncan                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jerome L. Pionk               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Rea Nuppenau                  |     |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 she be reinstated in the United States Army
Reserve.

2.  The applicant states that she never requested to be discharged but
rather requested a delay in reporting in order to allow her to find someone
to stay with her seriously disabled husband.

3.  The applicant provides copies of eight sets of orders from the U. S.
Army Human Resources Command (HRC), St. Louis, Missouri (M-09-405574, M-09-
405574A02, M-09-405574A03, M-09-405574A04, M-09-405574A05,
M-09-405574R, C-10-524111, and D-11-534753), a 7 June 2005 request for
exemption from involuntary active duty with eight pages of supporting
documents, a 5 December 2005 letter from the applicant to HRC, and a
5 December 2005 letter from an Army Reserve Career Counselor to HRC.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The records show the applicant first enlisted in the Florida Army
National Guard on 2 February 1985.  She served honorably and was discharged
from the Guard on 15 June 1998 and transferred to the U. S. Army Reserve
(USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement).

2.  In January 2001 the applicant transferred to a TPU in Marianna, Florida
with a subsequent reassignment to a TPU in Southfield, Minnesota in October
2001 and then back to Florida in 2003.

3.  HRC Orders M-09-405574, dated 9 September 2004, ordered the applicant
to active duty for 25 days of mobilization processing.  She was given a
reporting date of 26 October 2004.

4.  On 7 June 2005 the applicant submitted a request for exemption from
involuntary active duty with eight pages of documents related to her
husband's medical condition.

5.  Included in the packet are five medical statements that indicate the
applicant's husband requires constant care due to his paranoid
schizophrenia, epilepsy, hypertension and hyperlipidemia.  The applicant's
husband is not able to take care of himself and requires constant
supervision and care.  The applicant is shown as being the primary
caregiver.

6.  HRC Orders M-09-405574A02, dated 21 June 2005, modified the applicant's
reporting date from 26 October 2004 to 10 July 2005.  These orders also
show a change of address from Greenwood, Florida to Bronx, New York.

7.  HRC Orders M-09-405574A03, dated 28 June 2005, modified the applicant's
reporting date from 10 July 2005 to 14 August 2005.

8.  HRC Orders M-09-405574A04, dated 2 August 2005, modified the
applicant's reporting date from 14 August 2005 to 18 September 2005.

9.  HRC Orders M-09-405574A05, dated 8 September 2005, modified the
applicant's reporting date from 18 September 2005 to 23 October 2005.

10.  HRC Orders M-09-405574R, dated 30 September 2005, revoked the
applicant's order to active duty.

11.  HRC Orders C-10-524111, dated 28 October 2005, reassigned the
applicant from the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) Inactive Ready
Reserve to the 344th Combat Medical Hospital, a TPU, effective 24 October
2005.

12.  HRC Orders D-11-534753, dated 1 November 2005, honorably discharged
the applicant from the USAR.

13.  In a 5 December 2005 letter from the applicant to HRC, she notes that
she attended drills at her new unit in New York on 19 and 20 November 2005
only to receive the discharge order on 29 November 2005.  She states that
she had requested a delay in being called to active duty not to be
discharged.  At this time she requested that her situation be reviewed and
she be retained.

14.  In a 5 December 2005 letter from an Army Reserve Career Counselor to
HRC, the counselor states that he spoke with the applicant and contends a
misunderstanding has occurred as to what the applicant was requesting.  The
counselor indicated the applicant attended drills on 19 and 20 November
2005 and the discharge orders jeopardize her pay.  The counselor requested
that the orders discharging the applicant be revoked since the situation
that prevented her from deploying earlier had been taken care of and that
she be allowed to continue her career.

15.  In the preparation of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from
the HRC, Delay and Exemption Board Team Officer in Charge.  In the opinion
it was noted that Army Regulation 601-25, paragraph 4-7 states that a
member requesting exemption must sign a request for discharge and that is
what the applicant did.  It was the opinion of the reviewing officer that
no error was made on the part of the Army.

16.  A copy of the opinion was forwarded to the applicant and no response
from the applicant is of record.

17.  Army Regulation 601-25 (Delay in Reporting for and Exemption from
Active Duty, Initial Active Duty for Training, and Reserve Forces Duty)
prescribes policy and procedures for delay in and exemption from entry on
active duty (AD), initial active duty for training (IADT), and Reserve
Forces Duty (RFD) for members of the Army National Guard of the United
States (ARNGUS) and the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR).  Chapter 4 applies when
units or members of the IRR and Standby Reserve are ordered to AD during a
mobilization.

      a.  Paragraph 4-2 (Availability) states that all Ready Reserve
members will be prepared to report for AD within 24 hours after
notification unless an exception is authorized.  Personnel must make
advance arrangements to meet business, personal, and other responsibilities
to ensure that they are able to meet reporting times when mobilized.

      b.  Paragraph 4-5 (Delay or exemption) states that during a partial
mobilization, Reserve Component members may be delayed or exempted from
mobilization only under conditions shown in table 2-1 (rules 31 through
37).  Depending on circumstances and needs of the nation and military
service when a mobilization is authorized, HQDA may issue separate
instructions authorizing delay or exemption for other reasons.  Rule 36
pertains to the applicant's situation and allows for a 60 day delay for
extreme personal hardship.

      c.  Paragraph 4-7 (Application for delay or exemption) states:

            (1).  A member requesting delay or exemption will apply to the
immediate commander under whose jurisdiction the member is assigned for
control.

            (2).  The reason for the request will be given.  Also, the
information and documentary evidence will be furnished as prescribed in
table 2-1.

            (3).  Members requesting exemption must sign a request for
discharge.

            (4).  The immediate commander will review the application and
will ensure that complete information and documentary evidence is included
before forwarding the application to the approving authority.  An
incomplete application will be returned to the individual with specific
instructions for completion.

            (5).  Each responsible agency will promptly process
applications for delay or exemption. As individual decisions are reached,
the applicants will be notified as soon as possible.  Every effort will be
made to furnish the information to the member before the date of departure
from home to comply with orders.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant did not receive her original orders (to report for active
duty to participate in the 25 day mobilization processing) in a timely
manner because she failed to maintain a correct current address.

2.  When the applicant did update her records, she received four changes to
her reporting date prior to the orders being canceled.  The changes in
reporting dates although not specifically denoted amount to a granting of a
delay to report in excess of the normal 60 days authorized under
regulations.

3.  A Reserve Soldier is required to maintain the ability to report for
active duty within 24 hours of notification of mobilization.  They are to
maintain their personal affairs in such a state as to allow for this rapid
call-up.

4.  The founding purpose of the Reserve is to have a pool of qualified
personnel who can, on very short notice, support, augment, or relieve
active duty personnel.  Maintaining personnel on the Reserve roles who are
not able to be mobilized is contrary to the basic reason for the existence
of a Reserve force.

5.  Regulations require that a Soldier who is requesting either a delay in
reporting or exemption to reporting request discharge or transfer to the
Retired Reserve as an option in the event the delay or exemption is not
granted.

6.  While it appears there may have been some disconnect between different
offices at HRC, in relation to the applicant's status at the time of her
discharge, it was the applicant's responsibility to maintain her affairs in
a state so that just this sort of situation did not occur.

7.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_JLP____  __RMN__  __CD___  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.




                                  __      Carmen Duncan_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060002228                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061024                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |135                                     |
|2.                      |136                                     |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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