IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  22 March 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100021472 


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, correction of her records to make her eligible for transfer to the Retired Reserve and entitlement to retirement benefits.

2.  She states she was basically forced out because the cut-off score was very high for the Military Police.  At the time of her separation, she was not given the options of compensation or to be reassigned into another military occupational specialty (MOS) to complete 20 years of service.  She believes her separation was unjust because she had invested 17 years of her life to serve her country.  She was not given the privilege of retiring with 17 years of honorable service with payment compatible to the years of service rendered.  She served from
12 August 1971 through 6 December 1988.  Her military record will reflect that she made efforts to increase her promotion points by attending classes and proficiently performing all assigned duties.  She did not pursue this earlier until she spoke with someone recently who had 15 years of service and retired with a lesser percentage (non-medical).

3.  She provides her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 12 August 1971 for a period of 3 years in the rank/grade of private (PV1)/E-1.  She completed training and she was awarded military occupational specialty 95B (Military Police).  She was honorably discharged from active duty for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on 29 May 1974.  She reenlisted in the RA on 30 May 1974 for a period of 5 years in the rank/grade of specialist four (SP4)/E-4.

3.  She was promoted to the rank/grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5 on 9 May 1975, which is the highest grade she attained.

4.  She was honorably discharged from active duty for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on 15 February 1979.  She reenlisted in the RA on 16 February 1979 for 3 years in pay grade E-5.

5.  On 10 September 1987, a memorandum, subject:  Department of the Army (DA) Imposed Bar to Reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) was addressed to the applicant.  The memorandum indicated that during a review of her file by a DA Selection Board, the board considered her total performance and future potential for retention in the Army.  The contributing factor for her DA imposed bar to reenlistment was five enlisted evaluation reports between November 1983 and November 1986.  She was provided options to select; however, her selected option is not contained in the available records.

6.  In a memorandum to the applicant from the Separations and Appeals Branch, U.S. Total Army Personnel Agency, Alexandria, VA, dated 15 July 1988, it states she was provided an opportunity to appeal the bar to reenlistment, but either her appeal was denied or she elected not to appeal.

7.  The memorandum further states the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower & Reserve Affairs) had directed her separation as a result of budgetary and manpower restrictions within 90 days of her receipt of the memorandum, unless she requested an earlier date.

8.  On 6 September 1988, she acknowledged receipt of the memorandum of notification informing her of her separation from active duty.  On 18 October 1988, she requested an overseas separation with an established date of 6 December 1988.

9.  On 18 November 1988, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for overseas separation.

10.  She was honorably discharged from active duty on 6 December 1988 in pay grade E-5.  She completed 17 years, 3 months, and 24 days of creditable active service.

11.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 3914, states an enlisted member of the Army who has at least 20, but less than 30, years of service may upon request be retired.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contents she was not given the opportunity to complete 20 years of service for retirement benefits.

2.  The evidence of record shows she enlisted in the RA on 12 August 1971.  The highest grade she attained was SGT/E-5.  On 10 September 1987 a DA imposed bar to reenlistment under the QMP was imposed against her due to five poor enlisted evaluation reports.  .

3.  The evidence of record also shows she acknowledged the notification and her established separation date and she requested an overseas separation which was approved on 18 November 1988.  She was honorably discharged from active service on 6 December 1988 in pay grade E-5.  She was credited with 17 years, 3 months, and 24 days of net active service.

4.  There is no evidence of record and she did not provide any evidence to show that she was not provided the opportunity to be reassigned to overcome the indicated areas of deficiency or that she was improperly barred from reenlistment and thus was unable to complete 20 years of active Federal service.  There is no evidence to support her contentions.  There is also no evidence of error or injustice related to her discharge.

5.  In view of the foregoing, she did not complete the required qualifying years of service for retirement and there is no evidence that she had a 20-year connection with the Army.  Therefore, she is not entitled to correction of her records to show she is eligible for transfer to the Retired Reserve and entitlement to retirement benefits.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting her request.

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)                                         AR20100021472



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100021472



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1