RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        8 November 2008
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070004162


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Barbara J. Ellis              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jose A. Martinez              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Chester A. Damian             |     |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 receive credit for United
States Army Reserve (USAR) service he performed after he reached age 60;
and that his retirement pay be changed accordingly.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his total qualifying service for
retirement purposes should be 23 years, 5 months and 26 days instead of 22
years,
6 months and 10 days; and his retirement point total should be 2580 instead
of 2518 based on the service he performed after reaching age 60.  He states
that the Group (colonel) and Battalion (lieutenant colonel) commanders of
his USAR unit supported and recommended approval of his Mandatory Removal
Date (MRD) extension, and requested he continue to drill with his USAR unit
until his MRD extension was approved.

3.  The applicant provides his MRD packet with supporting chain of command
letters, Chronological Statement of Retirement Points (ARPC Form 249-2-E),
and retirement orders in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s military records show he served on active duty in the
United States Marine Corps (USMC), in an enlisted status, from 5 January
1966 through 4 January 1968, and in the USMC Reserve (USMCR) from 5 January
1968 through 24 October 1971.  It also shows he served in an enlisted
status in the Army National Guard (ARNG) from 21 May 1977 through 20 May
1981.

2.  On 18 March 1982, the applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in
the Medical Service Corps (MSC) of the USAR.  His date of birth is
2 November 1945.  He was promoted to first lieutenant (1LT) on 17 March
1985, to captain (CPT) on 16 March 1987, major (MAJ) on 15 March 1994 and
lieutenant colonel (LTC) on 23 October 2001.  He was considered and not
selected for promotion to colonel (COL) by a Reserve Component Selection
Board (RCSB) that convened on 10 May 2005.

3.  On 17 October 2006, Headquarters, Army Reserve Medical Command,
Pinellas Park, Florida, Orders Number 06-290-00043 was published and
directed the applicant's release from his current assignment and
transferred him to the Retired Reserve, effective 15 November 2006.

4.  On 6 March 2007, United States Army Human Resources Command,
St. Louis, Missouri (HRC-St. Louis) Orders Number P03-782640 directed the
applicant placement on the Retired List, effective 1 December 2005,
retroactive to his 60th birthday.

5.  The applicant's record contains a Chronological Statement of Retirement
Points, dated 1 March 2007, that shows he completed a total of 23 years,
5 months and 26 days of qualifying service for retirement and that he
attained a total of 2580 retirement points.

6.  In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was
obtained from the HRC-St. Louis Retirements and Annuities Supervisor.  This
official recommends denial of the applicant's request.  He states, in
effect, that although there are provisions allowing Army Medical Department
(AMEDD) personnel to be extended beyond age 60, in order to receive these
MRD extensions, AMEDD officers must petition the Secretary of the Army's
AMEDD retention board, which is conducted at HRC-St. Louis.  This HRC
retirement official further states that AMEDD officer MRD extension
procedures are well known; however, it appears the applicant submitted his
request to his chain of command in August 2005, which was just three months
prior to his MRD and retirement date, and his request was processed locally
instead of being forwarded for consideration by the AMEDD retention board.
The applicant did not submit his retirement application until late 2006, a
year after his 60th birthday and there is no evidence that his MRD
extension was ever processed and approved by the AMEDD retention board.

7.  The HRC-St. Louis Retirements and Annuities Supervisor concludes by
stating that all Soldiers are informed of retirement at age 60, and it is
apparent the applicant knew that to continue beyond age 60 in an active
status required an approved extension, but he did not have such approval
and still continued to dril; therefore, this official would not favorably
consider the applicant's request.

8.  On 3 July 2007, the applicant was provided a copy of the HRC-St. Louis
advisory opinion in order to have an opportunity to respond.  To date, he
has failed to reply.

9.  Army Regulation 140-10 (Assignments, Attachments, Details, and
Transfers) prescribes policies, responsibilities, and procedures to assign,
attach, detail, remove, or transfer USAR soldiers.  Chapter 7 contains
guidance on mandatory removal from an active USAR status.

10.  Paragraph 7-3 of the same regulation outlines the policy for mandatory
removal upon reaching the maximum age.  It states, in pertinent part, that
Soldiers not sooner removed for another reason will be removed when they
reach maximum age.  Removal date will be the last day of the month in which
a field grade or company grade officer reaches age 60.  Section III (Army
Medical Department (AMEDD) Officer Removal Exceptions and Processing
Procedures) contains guidance for exceptions to the mandatory removal of
officers based on maximum length of service or age.  Paragraph 7 states, in
pertinent part, that under certain circumstances the retention of Reserve
Component (RC) officers in an active status in certain AMEDD areas of
concentration until age 67 is authorized.  These exceptions do not apply to
MSC officers, except for MSC officers in 68-series area of concentration
(AOC).

11.  Army Regulation 135-32 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve Retention
in Active Status after Qualification for Retired Pay) prescribes policies,
procedures, and responsibilities for retaining certain commissioned
officers in an active Reserve status past the date they become qualified
for retired pay.  Paragraph 1-6 contains the guidance on the eligibility of
AMEDD officers for sequential periods of retention in an active status up
to the maximum age of 67.  It identifies the AMEDD officers who are and
those who are not eligible for extension and states that MSC officers who
have been designated as an allied health officer, or a biomedical sciences
officer, or those who are in the Optometry Section of the MSC are eligible;
however, all other MSC officers are not.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's record shows that he was credited with the years of
qualifying service and retirement points he is requesting in the last
Chronological Statement of Retirement Points on file, which is dated 1
March 2007.  As a result, no further action by the Board is necessary on
these matters.

2.  The applicant's contention that his retirement pay should be adjusted
based on the service credit and retirement point adjustment in question was
also carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidentiary
basis to support granting this portion of the requested relief.

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was a MSC officer and was
not designated as an allied health officer, a biomedical sciences officer,
and was not in the Optometry Section of the MSC.  As a result, he was not
eligible for extension of his MRD through age 67 under the special AMEDD
regulatory provisions for extension beyond age 60.

4.  Further, even had he been eligible, given his failure to submit his MRD
extension to the proper authority in accordance with the governing
regulation, which was his responsibility to do, as indicated in the HRC-St.
Louis advisory opinion, his placement on the Retired List on 1 December
2005, at age 60, was proper and equitable.  Therefore, an adjustment of his
retired pay would not be appropriate at this time.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__BJE __  __JAM___  __CAD__  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.




                                  _____Barbara J. Ellis______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070004162                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/11/08                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2005/12/01                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 135-178                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Age 60 Retirement USAR                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |135.0200                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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