RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        24 May 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070000159


      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            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald J. Weaver              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David W. Tucker               |     |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, that he be reinstated in the Army
and reclassified into military occupational specialty (MOS) 31G (Tactical
Communications Chief) effective March 1992.  In a 28 November 2006 Privacy
Authorization Form to his Senator he apparently requested that the Army
find him qualified for enlistment.

2.  The applicant states that he had submitted his DD Form 398 (Personnel
Security Questionnaire) as directed prior to his departure to the Advanced
Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC) in June.  It was noted in the
reclassification letter that he did not submit his update.  He thinks he
was counseled by his company commander in January about the Special
Separation Benefit (SSB).

3.  The applicant states that he was counseled again by his company
commander about the reclassification orders, but he had his SSB approved.
The paperwork for the early out was submitted first.  To the best that he
can recall, that is why he got out.

4.  The applicant provides a 28 November 2006 letter to his Senator; his DD
Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the
period ending 15 July 1992; a fingerprint card; an Army Commendation Medal
citation; a letter of appreciation from a major general; a DA Form 3180
(Personnel Screening and Evaluation Record), dated 27 August 1990; a DA
Form 873 (Certificate of Clearance and/or Security Determination); six
pages of a 16-page DD Form 398, dated 14 January 1992; one page of a four-
page DD Form           398-2 (National Agency Questionnaire); an undated,
two-page letter to Staff Sergeant M___, apparently his recruiter; and a
Motion to Dismiss (Nolle Prosequi) and Dismissal Order, dated  October
1987.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 15 July 1992.  The application submitted in this case is dated
7 November 2006.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  After having had prior service, the applicant enlisted in the Regular
Army on 23 May 1979.  He was promoted to Staff Sergeant, E-6 on 1 May 1986
in primary MOS (PMOS) 72E.

4.  The applicant was assigned to Germany when he received orders to attend
ANCOC at Fort Gordon, GA, beginning in August 1991.

5.  The applicant was reclassified into PMOS 74C (Record Telecommunications
Center Operator) on 1 October 1991, apparently as a result of a force
restructuring initiative.

6.  On 22 January 1992, the applicant requested early separation under the
provisions of the SSB, with a separation date of 1 June 1992.

7.  By memorandum dated 11 May 1992, the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command
approved the applicant’s request, with a separation date of December 1992.


8.  On 8 June 1992, the applicant requested his separation date be changed
to 15 July 1992.  His request was approved.

9.  510th Personnel Service Company Orders 116-13, dated 9 June 1992,
awarded the applicant PMOS 31G3O4A (additional skill identifier (ASI) A4
meaning reclassification training required) and withdrew PMOS 74C3O
effective  21 March 1992 under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-200,
paragraph     2-31c.

10.  On 15 July 1992, the applicant was honorably discharged under the
Voluntary Early Transition Program (SSB).  He enlisted in the U. S. Army
Reserve the next day.

11.  The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1992
established voluntary incentive programs to support the Army drawdown.
These incentive programs were designed to induce members of the Armed
Forces to leave the military voluntarily.  Under both of the programs, the
Voluntary Separation Incentive and the Special Separation Benefit,
qualifying service members who voluntarily left active duty before their
retirement vested received benefits based on their salary at the time of
separation and on years of service.  Under the SSB, an eligible member
would receive a lump sum payment equal to 15 percent of the Soldier’s
annual basic pay multiplied by his years of active service.  Soldiers who
applied for this incentive were required to enter into a written agreement
to serve in the Ready Reserve for a period of not less than 3 years, in
addition to any remaining military service obligation based in statute,
following the separation from active duty.

12.  Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System),
paragraph 2-31c states that mandatory withdrawal of a Soldier’s primary MOS
is required by the reclassification authority under a number of conditions,
including upon loss of qualifications, disqualification from the Personnel
Reliability Program (when required of the Soldier); and lack of security
clearance required to perform duties normally related to the MOS.
Involuntarily reclassified Soldiers who may no longer retain their current
PMOS due to loss of qualification which precludes retention of the PMOS
will be awarded the new PMOS with the appropriate skill level effective the
date of approval of reclassification.  Soldiers awarded a new PMOS prior to
reclassification training will also be awarded additional skill identifier
(ASI) 4A to show reclassification training in the new PMOS is required.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant appears to be contending that his reclassification letter
(which is not available) erroneously stated he did not submit his Personnel
Reliability Program periodic reinvestigation paperwork in a timely manner.
He contends, however, that he submitted the paperwork prior to departing
for ANCOC.  This reason for reclassification to PMOS 31G appears to be
corroborated by the authority (Army Regulation 600-200, paragraph 2-31c)
given in his reclassification orders.

2.  However, the applicant acknowledges that he was counseled by his
company commander in January about the SSB.  He also acknowledges that he
was counseled again by his company commander about the reclassification
orders.

3.  The applicant contended that the paperwork for the early out under the
SSB was submitted first and, to the best that he can recall, that is why he
got out. However, he does not state and it cannot be determined from the
records whether “he got out” because he wanted to or because his chain of
command would not let him change his mind about separating early.

4.  In any case, again, the applicant acknowledged that he was counseled by
his company commander about the reclassification orders.  He provided no
evidence to show that he wanted to stay in the Army and that he sought
assistance (for example, from the Inspector General’s office) in helping
him to remain in the Army.  He provided evidence to show he completed some
of the forms required for a periodic Personnel Reliability Program
reinvestigation, but he provided no evidence (for example, from the
Inspector General’s office) to show attempted to resolve the discrepancy
between his contention that he did submit the paperwork and the official
determination that he did not submit it.

5.  Almost 15 years have passed since the applicant’s separation under the
SSB. It cannot be determined at this point in time what happened with his
paperwork for his period Personnel Reliability Program reinvestigation.  In
the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that his request
for separation under the Voluntary Early Transition Program (SSB) was
processed in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time, at
his request, and with his continuing consent.

6.  In a 28 November 2006 Privacy Authorization Form to his Senator, it
appears the applicant also requested that the Army find him qualified for
enlistment.  As he provided no evidence to show on what basis the Army is
currently denying him reenlistment, no determination on whether an error or
injustice has occurred can be made.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 15 July 1992; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on         14 July 1995.  The applicant did not file within the 3-
year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation
or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jcr___  __rjw___  __dwt___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  __Jeffrey C. Redmann__
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070000159                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070524                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.03                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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