RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:       1 March 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060009671


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Luis Almodova                 |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Thomas M. Ray                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. James R. Hastie               |     |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, adjustment of his mandatory removal
date (MRD) from February 2008 to February 2013.

2.  The applicant states that he has served in Iraq for one year and has
extended for another tour.  He has encountered first hand the critical
shortage of qualified Civil Affairs (CA) officers.  They have reclassified
many Army, Navy, and Air Force personnel to accomplish the CA mission.
This is only a temporary solution to a very real problem.  He adds that if
a need in our country's defense would arise whereby these Army, Navy, and
Air Force personnel were needed to conduct operations utilizing their
initial specialties, CA could be placed at a serious risk of not
successfully accomplishing their mission.

3.  He concludes his request by stating, in effect, that he would
appreciate the opportunity to continue to serve his country until he
reaches the age of 62 and assist in alleviating the immediate and long term
shortages of qualified CA officers in an active duty or reserve component
environment.  Because his re-entry into the military was through no fault
of his own, he should be allowed to continue service to his country as long
as he is qualified, fit, and able to meet the requirements and standards
for said service.

4.  The applicant provides no additional documents in support of his
request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show that he enlisted in the Wisconsin
Army National Guard on 8 January 1970.  He was ordered to active duty on 24
March 1970 and was released from active duty for training on 8 August 1970.
 While on active duty for training, he completed basic combat training.  He
also completed his advanced individual training and was awarded the
military occupational specialty (MOS) 11C, Infantry Indirect Fire Crewman.

2.  The evidence shows the applicant was appointed and accepted a
commission in the infantry branch in the rank of second lieutenant in the
Wisconsin Army National Guard on 5 May 1972.

3.  The applicant continued to serve in the Wisconsin Army National Guard
and on 15 October 1976, he was voluntarily reassigned to the US Army
Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) while serving in the rank of first
lieutenant.

4.  On 26 April 1978, a letter, Subject:  Promotion as a Reserve
Commissioned Officer of the Army under Title 10 of the United States Code
and AR (Army Regulation) 135-155, was prepared by Headquarters, Fifth
United States Army.  The applicant was promoted to the rank of captain with
an effective date and date of rank of 9 May 1978.

5.  On 13 April 1987, a letter, Subject:  Promotion as a Reserve
Commissioned Officer of the Army, was prepared by Headquarters, Fourth
United States Army.  The applicant was promoted to the rank of major with
an effective date and date of rank of 8 May 1987.

6.  The applicant was twice non-selected for promotion to the rank of
lieutenant colonel, pay grade O-5.  On 31 May 1995, he was provided the
options available to him as a result of his nonselection for promotion.
He was advised that officers not selected for promotion must be discharged
within 90 days after the selection board reported its finding unless they:
 had a service obligation, were eligible for and requested transfer to the
retired Reserve, or had been credited with eighteen or more but less than
twenty years of satisfactory Federal service for retired pay purposes.  He
was provided a Reserve Status Statement & Election of Options form to
complete and return to the US Army Reserve Personnel Center, St. Louis,
Missouri.

7.  The applicant completed and returned his Reserve Status Statement &
Election of Options form to St. Louis on 15 July 1995.  The applicant
indicated on the form that he desired to be transferred to the Retired
Reserve.

8.  On 10 August 1995, the Army Reserve Personnel Center, issued orders
ARPC-SFS-0114 Orders C-08-550495, reassigning the applicant from the
USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) to the Retired Reserve effective 28
February 1995.

9.  On 12 January 2004, the applicant applied to the ABCMR and requested
that his transfer to the Retired Reserve be revoked and that he be
reinstated to the Army Reserve.  In his request to the Board, he stated, in
effect, the 18-year lock in rule had been ignored and he had not been given
the option of being retained to complete 20 years of qualifying service for
retirement purposes.  He stated he had not been offered the option of being
retained to complete 20 qualifying years of service and he would like that
opportunity.  In his application to the Board, he opined that this had not
been offered to him as an option because his statement of retirement points
was not correct.

10.  On 2 November 2004, the ABCMR unanimously voted to void his transfer
to the Retired Reserve and to reinstate him to the USAR Control Group
(Reinforcement), for three years of service or when he completed twenty
years of qualifying service for retired pay at age 60, whichever happened
first.  The three years started with the implementation of the Board's
action.

11.  On 23 February 2005, the US Army Human Resources Command (HRC) – St.
Louis, Missouri, revoked the applicant's transfer to the Retired Reserve
and, in effect, reinstated him to an active Reserve status.  His mandatory
removal date was updated to 23 February 2008.

12.  On 18 April 2005, the applicant was provided orders 05-108-00042,
which were prepared by Headquarters, US Army Civil Affairs and
Psychological Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, ordering him
to active duty with a reporting date of 9 May 2005, for a period of 545
days, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  The applicant remains on
active duty.

13.  The applicant's date of birth is 18 August 1950.  At present, the
applicant is over 56 years and 6 months old.  He will reach his 60th
birthday on 18 August 2010.

14.  The applicant's Chronological Statement of Retirement Points dated
9 January 2007, shows that as of 7 January 2007, he had 19 years and 1 day
qualifying service for retirement.

15.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was requested of
the US Army Human Resources Command, Transition and Separations Branch, St.
Louis, Missouri.

16.  A Human Resources Specialist, Transition and Separation Branch, Army
Human Resources Command – St. Louis, Missouri, expressed the opinion that
there are no provisions of law or current Army policy that would allow the
applicant to be retained beyond his MRD.

17.  The Human Resources Specialist, Transition and Separation Branch,
continued the opinion by stating that the applicant had been granted an
extension to his mandatory removal date to 23 February 2008 to allow him
to complete 20 years of qualifying service for retired pay purposes under
the provisions of Title 10, US Code, Section 12646.  She reiterated there
are currently no provisions of law that would allow further retention of
the applicant beyond completion of 20 qualifying years service or beyond
the maximum age of 60.

18.  The opinion was forwarded to the applicant for his
acknowledgment/rebuttal on 7 November 2006.  The applicant responded on 20
November 2006.  In his reply, the applicant stated, in effect, his first
option would be to keep his request as stated in his packet to the ABCMR.
He would like to serve as long as he is fit and able to contribute to the
mission of our great military.  He continued that his second option would
be to change his MRD to his 60th birthday, 18 August 2010. He added that he
realizes the shortage of qualified CA officers is at a critical point.
They are reclassifying different military occupational specialties (MOS)
because their ranks in CA personnel is depleting.  He believes his
continued service to the CA MOS and to the Army can help to alleviate this
problem.

19.  Title 10, United States Code, Section 14506, provides that unless
retained as provided in section 12646, each Reserve officer of the Army who
holds the grade of major who has failed selection to the next higher grade
for the second time and whose name is not on a list of officers recommended
for promotion to the next higher grade shall, if not earlier removed from
the reserve active-status list, be removed from that list in accordance
with section 14513 of this title on the later of the first day of the month
after the month in which the officer completes 20 years of commissioned
service, or the first day of the seventh month after the month in which the
President approves the report of the board which considered the officer for
the second time.

20.  Title 10, US Code, Section 12646, provides that if on the date
prescribed for the discharge or transfer from an active status of a Reserve
commissioned officer he is entitled to be credited with at least 18, but
less than 19, years of service computed under section 12732 of this title,
he may not be discharged or transferred from an active status under chapter
573, 1407, or 1409 of this title or chapter 21 of title 14, without his
consent before the earlier of the following dates: the date on which he
is entitled to be credited with 20 years of service computed under section
12732 of this title; or the third anniversary of the date on which he would
otherwise be discharged or transferred from an active status.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows that at the time the applicant was two times non-
selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel, he had completed more than 18
years but less than 20 years service for retired pay purposes.

2.  The evidence also shows that he was not provided the option of
continuing to serve in the active Reserve until he completed 20 years for
retired pay purposes, because his chronological statement of retirement
points was incorrect.

3.  The applicant was reassigned to the retired Reserve and after his
transfer to the retired Reserve, he made application to the ABCMR for
revocation of the reassignment/transfer orders and further requested
reinstatement in the active Reserve based on the fact his total service for
retirement pay purposes was incorrect.

4.  The ABCMR, based on the evidence, voted to revoke his transfer to the
retired Reserve and reinstated him to the active Reserve.  In the decision
to reinstate him, the Board established his new MRD on a date when the
applicant would complete three years service or when he completed 20 years
qualifying service for retirement pay purposes.

5.  In an advisory opinion received from the Transition and Separations
Branch, US Army Human Resources Command, St. Louis, a Human Resources
Specialist indicated the applicant had been granted an extension of his
MRD to 23 February 2008 to allow him to complete 20 years of qualifying
service for retirement pay purposes under the provisions of Title 10, US
Code, Section 12646.  There were, she stated, no other provisions
currently available for his retention beyond this date; therefore, in
view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to
extension of his MRD beyond 23 February 2008.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JCR__  __JRH___  _TMR___  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.




                                  _____Thomas M. Ray_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060009671                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/03/01                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |113.0000                                |
|2.                      |113.0500                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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