IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	       28 July 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090001547 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that she be reinstated in the United States Army Reserve (USAR).

2.  The applicant, in effect, defers to counsel.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests, in effect, that documents related to the applicant’s discharge be expunged from the record and that she be reinstated in the USAR.

2.  Counsel states, in effect, that the applicant's separation was based upon an error and was without a factual basis.  Her separation was erroneous because she was in a low density area of concentration rather than in a high density area. Her commanding officer was best aware of her capabilities, and he recommended that she be retained.  The separation approval authority ignored her record of outstanding nursing professionalism.  She had over 18 years of Army experience and 28 years of civilian experience.  Additionally, she had volunteered for service in Iraq.  The applicant’s separation was an injustice to her and to the Army.  

3.  Counsel provides, in support of the request, copies of several memoranda relating to the separation process, recruiting letter, and both sides of what appears to be an Army health services recruiting post card.


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was born on 16 December 1944.  She was credited with completing 3 years of constructive service and she took the oath of office on     11 August 1988.  At age 43, she was appointed a USAR first lieutenant in the Army Nurse Corps.  

2.  She was promoted to captain with an effective date and date of rank of 9 September 1992.  

3.  The applicant was promoted to major with an effective date and date of rank of 28 March 2001. 

4.  A special promotion board that adjourned on 18 April 2001 reconsidered the applicant’s case and she was selected for promotion to major with a date of rank of 31 August 1999 and an effective date of 20 May 2001.  

5.  The applicant requested an extension of service to cover time actually served. She was approved to serve until 31 December 2006.  However, she was identified as being in an area of concentration that was over-strength and further retention was denied.  The applicant was not eligible for retired pay at age 60 because she had not completed 20 qualifying years of service for retired pay.

6.  The Human Resources Command (HRC) St. Louis, Integrated Web Services (IWS) Transactions log shows: 
   
   a.  on 7 April 2004, the applicant inquired about an extension of her mandatory removal date (MRD).  She requested additional help later that same day;
   
   b.  a copy of the applicant’s MRD extension request was received on 11 May 2004.  One required form was missing, the Body Fat Content Worksheet;

	c.  on 30 November 2006, an audit indicated the applicant had served past her MRD.  A new MRD was established as 31 December 2006 since the MRD could not be a date in the past;

	d.  on 3 January 2007, the applicant was informed her MRD extension request was received on 5 January 2007;
   
   
e.  on 9 January 2007, the status of the MRD request was checked, the status was checked again, on 16 January 2007; 
   
   f.  on 26 January 2007, the applicant hand delivered a request for a Reserve assignment or attachment;
   
   g.  the applicant was informed her MRD extension package was missing another required document.  The packet was incomplete when it arrived in St. Louis, MO, on 1 February 2007.  The packet was returned to the applicant and the applicant returned the complete version of the packet to St. Louis, on 
2 February 2007; 
   
   h.  on 10 April 2007, the applicant was informed she was not eligible for promotion unless her MRD was changed; 

	i.  on 23 April 2007, the applicant was advised her MRD extension packet was received on 29 April 2007.

7.  On 30 April 2007, the applicant was discharged from the USAR under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-175 (Separation of Officers).

8.  The documents submitted with this application consist of:  

   a.  a Human Resources Command (HRC) memorandum, dated 7 May 2007, which approved the applicant for retention until 31 December 2006 to cover time served and announced discharge, effective 30 April 2007;
   
   b.  a memorandum written by the Acting Commander, 344th Combat Support Hospital, dated 12 August 2007, to the Army Retention Board recommending that the applicant be retained beyond her mandatory removal date; 
   
   c.  a memorandum written by the Commander, 11th Battalion, 98th Division (Institutional Training), dated 26 December 2006, to the Army Retention Board also recommending  that the applicant be retained beyond her mandatory removal date; and 
   
   d.  an Army recruitment letter, dated 18 September 2008, seeking perioperative nurses to join the Army Health Care Team.


9.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 14703 states that "the Secretary of the Army may, with the officer's consent, retain in an active status any reserve officer assigned to the Medial Corps…the Army Nurse Corps, or…An officer may not be retained in active status under this section later than the date on which the officer becomes 67 years of age."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant and her counsel state that the applicant’s separation was based on an error.  She was in a low density area of concentration rather than in a high density area.  Her commander recommended that she be retained.  

2.  Whether she was in an area of concentration that was over strength in the USAR at the time of her discharge is not clear.  While there is a difference of opinion as to the facts, no substantiating evidence was provided with the application.  Nevertheless, extension beyond her MRD was at the discretion of the Secretary of the Army.  The applicant has not provided compelling evidence why this Board should override the determination by the appropriate authority that her MRD should not have been extended.

3.  The available evidence is not sufficient to support extending the applicant’s MRD and reinstating her in the USAR.

4.  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

____X___  __X_____  ___X___  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.




      _______ _  X______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090001547



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090001547



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1