IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  30 August 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110002228 


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 various corrections of her records as follows:

	a.  Correction of the date she was assigned to the 6224th U.S. Army Reserve Forces (USARF) School from 1 April 1996 to 11 April 1996.

	b.  Correction of her records as follows: 

* void her discharge from the USAR
* issue her a 20-year letter for having completed 15 qualifying years of service
* authorize her Regular Army retirement pay effective 12 April 1996
* authorize her access to the Selected Reserve Transition Benefits Program (SRTBP)
* authorize her separation pay 
* reinstate her commission and reassign her to the Retired Reserve effective 12 April 1996
* correct her military records to include anything that contains incorrect information concerning this matter

	c.  Correction of the DA Form 67-8 (U.S. Army Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the rating period from 14 April 1994 through 13 April 1995 (hereafter referred to as the first contested OER) as follows:

* the from date should be 20 April 1994 not 1 April 1994
* station code 04681 is incorrect
	d.  Correction of the DA Form 67-8 covering the rating period from 14 April 1995 through 13 April 1996 (hereafter referred to as the second contested OER) as follows:

* the rating period was 23 April 1996 not 13 April 1996
* the date she signed this OER was 20 April 1996 not 1 April 1996
* the item that states she was given the OER (2 June 1995) should contain no date entry; the OER should contain a note stating "officer not available to sign; OER mailed to her"
* station code 04681 is the incorrect code for the 104th Division
* the higher command (104th Institutional Training) code should be 5A 

2.  The applicant states:

* she was discharged from the USAR based on fraudulent circumstances in her unit, the 6224th USARF School
* she was assigned to the 6224th USARF on 1 April 1996; not 11 April 1996
* her eligibility date for promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC) was changed from 30 May 1996 to 30 May 1995 which led to an earlier consideration for promotion
* the second non-selection memorandum, dated 21 February 1996, with a suspense date of 20 April 1996 was held and intentionally given to her to take action on the suspense date
* orders assigning her to the 6224th USARF shows the street address is misspelled and the last four digits of the zip code are incorrect
* she served in Southwest Asia in support of Operations Desert Shield/Storm and she had problems upon her return
* she signed up for the non-resident Command and General Staff College (CGSC) Course against her better judgment
* some of the members of her former unit including the unit administrator, supervisor, and others appear to have conspired to get her discharged from the USAR
* there were many issues regarding incorrect automated data being in her official records - specifically Standard Installation Division Personnel System (SIDPERS) data
* the SIDPERS entries relating to the date she was eligible for promotion contained errors
* she qualified for a 15-year letter; she was given the option when her unit deactivated (if she could not find a unit within 50 miles and had 15 years of qualifying service she could be transferred to the Retired Reserve)
* the unit identification code (UIC) listed on her non-selection memorandum was incorrect
* there were issues related to the 104th Training Division being the higher command of the 6224th USARF School
* there were various administrative issues with her OERs 

3.  The applicant provides:

* an appointment memorandum
* a memorandum to review her records
* DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) ending on 24 April 1980, 28 February 1983, 29 June 1991, and 2 January 1992
* DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214)
* DA Form 1577 (Authorization for the Issuance of Awards)
* Form W-4 (1994) (Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate)
* DA Form 5960 (Authorization to Start, Stop, or Change Basic Allowance for Quarters and/or Variable Allowance for Housing)
* Standard Form 1199A (Direct Deposit Sign Up Form)
* CGSC Enrollment Notice
* DA Form 2B (Personnel Qualification Record - Part I)
* DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record - Part II)
* a listing of S-1 tasks
* Officer Record Brief
* DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action)
* USAR Summary Point Inquiry
* Army Reserve Personnel Command Form 249-2-E (Chronological Statement of Retirement Points)
* a memorandum requesting the delay of separation
* a memorandum, dated 1996, Subject: second non-selection for promotion
* 1995 notification of promotion status
* a memorandum requesting retention, denial memorandum, and allied documents
* letters between the applicant and Member(s) of Congress
* a letter from the U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC), Fort McPherson, GA to her Congressional Representative
* Honorable Discharge Certificate
* OERs for the periods 14 April 1994 through 13 April 1995 and 14 April 1995 through 13 April 1996
* Orders 96-114-045 (discharging the applicant from the USAR)
* DA Form 1380 (Record of Individual Performance of Reserve Duty Training)
* multiple reassignment, transfer, or discharge orders

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), 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 was born on 7 April 1946.

3.  She was appointed as a USAR commissioned officer in the rank of second lieutenant and executed an oath of office on 14 January 1977.  She entered active duty on 23 April 1977 and attained the rank of first lieutenant (1LT).  

4.  She was honorably released from active duty on 24 April 1980 and she was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) to complete her remaining service obligation.

5.  She entered active duty on 6 March 1981 and served as an Administrative/Personnel Systems Management Officer.  She was promoted to captain (CPT) on 15 March 1982.

6.  On 7 December 1982, she tendered her unqualified resignation.  She was honorably released from active duty on 28 February 1983 and she was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement). 

7.  On 15 July 1986, she was assigned to a troop program unit, the 377th Adjutant General Battalion, Long Beach, CA.  She was promoted to major (MAJ) in the USAR on 31 May 1988. 

8.  She was ordered to and entered active duty on 1 November 1990 in support of Operations Desert Shield/Storm.  She was honorably released from active duty on 29 June 1991.

9.  On 30 June 1991, she again entered active duty, also in support of Operations Desert Shield/Storm.  She was honorably released from active duty on 2 January 1992. 
10.  On 29 January 1992, she received confirmation of enrollment in the non-resident CGSC.

11.  She indicated that she was issued Orders C-04-41553, on 12 April 1996 [sic], assigning her to the 6224th USARF School and that these orders contained an incorrect spelling of the street address and four digits of the zip code were wrong.  However, she did not provide such orders and they are not contained in her official military personnel file (OMPF).  Nevertheless, her DA Form 2-1 shows she was assigned to the 6224th USARF School, Phoenix, AZ, on 11 April 1993. 

12.  On 5 December 1994, by memorandum, the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, St. Louis, MO notified the applicant she was considered for promotion to LTC by the 27 September 1994 Reserve Components Selection Board (RCSB) but she was not selected.  

13.  The applicant's OER on file prior to the two contested OERs is a special report from 30 June 1991 through 13 December 1991 (Deployment to Desert Shield/Storm).  

14.  On 13 April 1995, she received an annual OER (the first contested OER) for her duties as the Adjutant, 6224th USARF School, 63rd Army Reserve Command (ARCOM), Phoenix, AZ.  This OER shows in:

* Part I (k) (Administrative Data - Command Code) - "6A"
* Part I (l) (Administrative Data - Period Covered) - "from 94  04  14 through 94  04  13"
* Part I (m) (Administrative Data -Number of Months) - "12"

15.  On 15 December 1995, by memorandum, the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, St. Louis, notified her that she was considered for promotion to LTC by the September 1995 RCSB but she was not selected.  Additionally, as a result of her second non-selection, she would be discharged in accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 14513 and/or Army Regulation 140-10 (Assignments, Attachments, Details, and Transfers) unless she was eligible for and requested a transfer to the Retired Reserve.

16.  On 21 February 1996, by a memorandum addressed through her chain of command, Headquarters, USARC, Fort McPherson, GA, notified the applicant that she would be discharged unless she chose one of the following options by 20 April 1996:

* eligible for and requested a transfer to the Retired Reserve
* had a service obligation
* was credited with 18 but less than 20 years of qualifying service for non-regular retirement

17.  It is unclear at what stage the applicant was offered these options.  However, it is clear that no election was made on the "Election of Options" statement. 

18.  On 11 March 1996, by memorandum, the USARF School Commandant requested a delay in the applicant's separation.  He stated the 6224th was scheduled for inactivation on 15 November 1996.  The applicant was essential to the unit's mission accomplishment. 

19.  On 12 April 1996, she submitted a DA Form 4187 requesting SRTBP.  She stated that as of 13 January 1996 she had completed 15 years of qualifying service for Regular Retired Pay, a 20-year letter, separation pay, and SRTBP due to the inactivation, reorganization, or relocation of her unit.  She also indicated she was applying for a transfer to the Retired Reserve and requested 12 April 1996 as her transfer date.  Her commander recommended approval.

20.  On 13 April 1996, she received an annual OER (the second contested OER) for her duties as the Adjutant, 6224th USARF School, 104th IT (Institutional Training), Phoenix, AZ.  This OER was signed by her rater and senior rater on 1 May 1996 and shows in:

* Part I (k) (Administrative Data - Command Code) - "5A"
* Part I (l) (Administrative Data - Period Covered) - "95  04  14 through"
96  04  13"
* Part I (m) (Administrative Data - Number of Months) – "12"
* Part I (o) (Administrative Data - Rated Officer Copy) - "Given to Officer" contains an "X" and is dated "950602"
* Part I (p) (Administrative Data - Forwarding Address) – contains the applicant's address
* Part II (d) (Authentication - Signature of Rated Officer/Date) – contains the applicant's signature and it is dated "96  04  01"

21.  On 18 April 1996, by memorandum, the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, St. Louis, responded to the USARF School Commandant by stating:

* The applicant's retention was not recommended
* Requests for retention must made by the Soldier not a third party
* A review of the applicant's records showed she had not completed 50% of CGSC as required for promotion to LTC

22.  On 23 April 1996, the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Command, St. Louis, published Orders 96-114-045 honorably discharging her from the USAR effective 23 April 1996 in accordance with Army Regulation 135-175 (Separation of Officers).  Her ARPC Form 249-2-E, and her Official Military Personnel File shows she completed 15 years of qualifying service as follows:

Beginning Date
Ending Date
Qualifying YY/MM
Total Credible Points
19950114
19960113
1
077
19940114
19950113
1
088
19930114
19940113
0
015
19920114
19930113
0
029
19910114
19920113
1
365
19900114
19910113
1
089
19890114
19900113
1
067
19880114
19890113
0
015
19870114
19880113
1
203
19860114
19870113
0
028
19850114
19860113
1
130
19840114
19850113
1
067
19830114
19840113
1
061
19820114
19830113
1
365
19810114
19820113
1
331
19800114
19810113
1
132
19790114
19800113
1
365
19780114
19790113
1
365
19770114
19780113
1
281
Total

15 years
3,073 points
23.  An advisory opinion (AO) was obtained on 15 July 2011 in the processing of this case.  A USARC official recommended disapproval of the applicant's issues:

	a.  She was non-selected (twice) for promotion to LTC; therefore, she would have been removed from an active status within 90 days after the selection board submitted its results.  The results were approved on 3 October 1995 and the applicant was informed on 15 December 1995.  It appears her removal date of 23 April 1996 should have been earlier.  Since she had not served 18 but less than 20 years of qualifying service the only option she had was a discharge.  She did not qualify for a transfer to the Retired Reserve.

	b.  Retirement with 15 qualifying years of service is only applicable for Selected Reserve personnel who no longer meet membership solely because of physical disability unfitness.  The applicant's removal was a matter of law.  She was ineligible for reassignment to the Retired Reserve.
	c.  She was ineligible for SRTBP because her removal was not predicated due to unit inactivation but rather due to being non-selected twice.  

	d.  She contends that there were various errors in the documents she provides.  However, these errors were primarily on automated forms that display data from systems that are no longer used.  Nevertheless, these issues did not affect her non-selection.

	e.  The applicant raised issues related to the date eligible for promotion code on the DA Forms 2B, dated 21 April 1994 and 9 February 1995.  The DA Form 2B, dated 21 April 1994, listed the eligibility date as 30 May 1995, and the 2B, dated 9 February 1995, listed this date as 30 May 1996.  These forms were created from the SIDPERS-USAR; the personnel system used at the time, and the information was system generated.  The date on both forms is simply systems-generated data of two entirely different time periods. 

	f.  At the time of her discharge, the Army was going through a transformation and some of the units or commands were renamed.  For example, the U.S. Army Personnel Center was renamed the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command which was recently renamed the U.S. Army Human Resources Command.  The USAR also transitioned to a functional alignment of commands, organizing units under like type command and control elements.  The USARF Schools were realigned under Institutional Training and Exercises Divisions, the 104th Training Division (Institutional Training) being the higher command for the 6224th USARF School.  As the 6224th was a school that provided training, it was aligned under an Institutional Command, whereas schools with missions to observe and evaluate exercises were aligned under the Exercise Divisions. 

24.  In her rebuttal, dated 28 July 2011, she states:

* The IO did not address the issue of the separation pay
* She and others in the 6224th USARF School were told she would receive regular retirement pay from 12 April 1996
* She met two of the conditions to avoid discharge:  transfer to the Retired Reserve and she had a service obligation
* The issue is that the memorandum was not provided to her until 20 April 1996
* Her unit personnel were offered a 20-year letter and the ability to transfer to the Retired Reserve
* Her DA Form 4187 was signed by her chain of command 
* She met the criteria for SRTBP because of the inactivation

25.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers) prescribes the policies and procedures for the promotion of Reserve officers.  The regulation, in effect at the time, specifies promotion from MAJ to LTC required completion of a maximum of 7 years in the lower grade.  Any person, who fails to be selected for promotion to the rank of LTC twice will not be considered again for promotion.  All officers not qualified for retention will be removed from an active status within 90 days after the selection board submits its results to Headquarters, Department of the Army.  Promotion policy does not provide for the removal of non-selections by an RCSB except when directed by this Board.

26.  Army Regulation 135-175 prescribes the policies and procedures for the discharge of Reserve officers.  This regulation specifies that an officer in the grade of MAJ, who has completed his/her statutory military service obligation, will be discharged for failure to be selected for promotion after a second consideration by an RCSB, with or without the officer's consent.  

27.  Title 10, USC, section 14504 states that a MAJ of the Reserve Active-Status List who has failed selection for promotion 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 be separated not later than 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.  This period was 90 days at the time of her discharge. 

28.  Title 10, USC, sections 12731-12737 authorize retired pay for Reserve Component (RC) military service.  To be eligible for retired pay under this law, a Reserve Soldier upon attaining age 60 must have completed a minimum of 
20 qualifying years.  After 1 July 1949, a qualifying year is defined as the reserve Soldier must have earned at least 50 retirement points.  

29.  Title 10, USC, section 12731a (temporary special retirement qualification authority) provides for retirement for at least 15 years of service.  For the purposes of section 12731 of this title, the Secretary concerned may:

	a.  (subsection 1 of the law) During the period described in subsection (b), determine to treat a member of the Selected Reserve of a reserve component of the armed force under the jurisdiction of that Secretary as having met the service requirements of subsection (a)(2) of that section and provide the member with the notification required by subsection (d) of that section if the member (a), as of October 1, 1991, has completed at least 15, and less than 20, years of service computed under section 12732 of this title; or (b), after that date and before the end of the period described in subsection (b), completes 15 years of service computed under that section; and (subsection 2 of the law), upon the request of the member submitted to the Secretary, transfer the member to the Retired Reserve. 

	b.  The period referred to in subsection (a)(1) is the period beginning on October 23, 1992, and ending on December 31, 2001. 

	c.  Applicability - subject to needs of the service):

		(1)  The Secretary concerned may limit the applicability of subsection (a) to any category of personnel defined by the Secretary in order to meet a need of the armed force under the jurisdiction of the Secretary to reduce the number of members in certain grades, the number of members who have completed a certain number of years of service, or the number of members who possess certain military skills or are serving in designated competitive categories. 

		(2)  A limitation under paragraph (1) shall be consistent with the purpose set forth in section 4414(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102–484.

		(3)  Notwithstanding the provisions of section 4415(2) of the Defense Conversion, Reinvestment, and Transition Assistance Act of 1992 (division D of Public Law 102–484; 106 Stat. 2714), the Secretary concerned may, consistent with the other provisions of this section, provide the notification required by section 12731d of this title to a member who no longer meets the qualifications for membership in the Selected Reserve solely because the member is unfit because of physical disability. 

	d.  Exclusion:  This section does not apply to persons referred to in section 12731c of this title. 

	e.  The authority provided in this section shall be subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense and by the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard. 

30.  Army All Activities (ALARACT) Message 358/91, dated 20 December 1991, Subject: Voluntary Early Transitions Program with Voluntary Incentives stated that commanders must ensure that Soldiers denied retention by Headquarters, Department of the Army understand the ramification of applying for voluntary separation with an incentive.  It also stated that this program does apply to officers who had an established mandatory separation or retirement date. 

31.  Army Regulation 135-180 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve – Qualifying Service for Retired Pay Nonregular Service), paragraph 2-1a, indicates that to be eligible for retired pay, an individual does not need to have a military status at the time of application for retired pay, but must have (1) attained age 60, (2) completed a minimum of 20 years of qualifying service, and (3) served the last 8 years of his or her qualifying service as a RC Soldier.  The requirement to serve the last 8 years in a RC was later amended to the last 6 years, and on 26 April 2005, was reduced to zero (0) years.

32.  Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) prescribes the officer transfers from active duty to the RC and discharge functions for all officers on active duty for 30 days or more.  Chapter 6 applies to non-disability retirement of ADL (Active Duty List) commissioned and warrant officers on active duty to include AGR (Active Guard Reserve) commissioned and warrant officers who have 20 years or more of active federal service. 

33.  Department of the Army Circular 635-92-1 outlines the eligibility criteria for separation pay and provides separation pay formulas as authorized by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.29 dated 20 June 1991 and other Department of the Army guidance resulting from Public Law 101-510.  The circular also illustrates the various types of separation that are either eligible or ineligible for separation pay.  It states, in pertinent part, that separation pay is authorized for Soldiers serving on active duty on 5 November 1990 who were involuntarily separated prior to completion of obligated service or who were denied continuation of further service.  To be eligible for separation pay and benefits, individuals must have served 6 or more years of active Federal service and had to sign a Department of the Army Form 7154-R (Agreement to Join Ready Reserve) for a period of not less than 3 years.

34.  Title 10, USC, section 101 defines "active duty" as full-time duty in the active military service of the United States.  Such term includes full-time training duty; annual training duty; and attendance, while in the active military service, at a school designated as a service school by law or by the Secretary of the military department concerned.   

35.  Army Regulation 623-105 (Officer Evaluation Reporting System), effective 30 April 1992, established the policies and procedures for the Officer Evaluation Reporting System.  

	a.  Paragraph 4-10 (Administrative Data) states the period covered is the period extending from the day after the "Thru" date of the last report to the date the caused the event to occur.  The rating period is the period within the "Period Covered" during which the rated officer serves in the same position under the same rater who is writing the report:

* Item k shows the rated officer's major command as shown in Appendix K (active duty) of the regulation
* Item l shows the from date, which is the day following the last date of the preceding report
* Item m  shows the number of rated months
* Item o shows the disposition of the rated offer's copy of the report
* Item p shows the forwarding address provided by the officer if he or she left before getting a copy of the complete report

	b.  Paragraph 4-11 is for authentication by the rated officer and rating official after each has completed his or her parts of the form at the end of the rating period. 

	d.  Paragraph 5-5 states an annual report is mandatory on completion of one calendar year of duty following the through date of the last OER. 

36.  Army Regulation 680-29 (Military Personnel, Organization, and Type of Transaction Codes) provides for data codes used to report and record personnel data via the automated personnel information system.  The regulation in effect at the time stated Command Code 5A pertained to 5th Army and Command Code 6A pertained to 6th Army.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that her orders and OERs contained administrative errors.  Additionally, she contends that:

* her USAR discharge should be rescinded
* she should be issued a 20-year letter for having completed 15 qualifying years of service 
* she should be authorized Regular Army retirement pay effective 12 April 1996
* she should be authorized SRTBP benefits
* she should be authorized separation pay
* she should be reassigned to the Retired Reserve effective 12 April 1996
* she should have her commission reinstated
* all of her military records and anything that has incorrect information concerning this matter should be corrected

2.  With respect to her discharge:

	a.  the applicant was non-selected twice for promotion to LTC.  By law and regulation she was required to be discharged from an active status within
90 days (at the time).  

	b.  contrary to her alleged statements that her chain of command and/or supervisor were trying to discharge her, the evidence shows her school commandant submitted a request asking that she be delayed from separation.  

	c.  it is unclear if the applicant was presented the various options in February or April 1996.  But regardless, the only option that was available to her was an honorable discharge. 

3.  With respect to the issuance of a 15 or a 20-year letter:

	a.  The applicant was discharged because she was twice not selected for promotion to the next higher grade.  Although she completed a total of 15 years of qualifying service for non-regular retirement; she was not discharged because of medical reasons or because her unit deactivated.  She was mandatorily discharged, by law, due to not being selected twice for promotion.  She would not have qualified for a 15-year letter because of this mandatory separation.

	b.  She would not be qualified for a 20 year letter either because she did not and could not complete 20 years of qualifying service.  Since she had a mandatory separation date by reason of being twice not selected for promotion, she could no longer serve in a Reserve Component.  

4.  With respect to authorizing her Regular Army retirement pay effective 12 April 1996, the applicant was neither a member of the Regular Army nor did she complete at least 20 years of active service to qualify for such retirement.  

5.  With respect to her request for access to the SRTBP this program was authorized by Congress to provide compensation to Soldiers who lost their positions due to unit inactivation, reorganization, or relocations and could not find positions elsewhere.  The applicant was discharged because she failed to be promoted to the next higher grade and her discharge was a matter of law.  The unit inactivation had no bearing on her discharge.  She was ineligible for such benefits.

6.  Having been twice not selected for promotion to the next higher grade made her ineligible to serve in a Reserve Component which in turn made her ineligible for separation pay. 
7.  The applicant did not qualify for a transfer to the Retired Reserve because she had not completed the required years of service to qualify for such a transfer.

8.  The applicant was discharged for being non-selected twice for promotion; therefore, her commission was terminated and there is no basis for reinstatement.

9.  With respect to the misspelling of the street number and incorrect zip code on her orders, the Army has an interest in maintaining the accuracy of its records for historical purposes.  The information in those records must reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created.  There is no evidence that suggests the applicant has or would suffer any injury or injustice as a result of the Army maintaining its records.  In the absence of a showing of material error or injustice, there is a reluctance to recommend that those records be changed.  There is not a sufficiently compelling reason for compromising the integrity of the Army's records.

10.  With respect to the first contested OER (14 April 1994 - 13 April 1995):

	a.  The command code of "6A" pertains to 6th Army.  It appears that her higher headquarters, 63rd ARCOM, was under 6th Army.  Nevertheless, this code is not prejudicial to the content of the OER and even if incorrect, it is a harmless error it does not invalidate the OER.

	b.  The beginning date of 14 April 1994 appears to be one day after the through date of the preceding OER.  Even if this date appears to be incorrect, there is no evidence she was harmed by this alleged minor administrative discrepancy.  

11.  With respect to the second contested OER (14 April 1995 - 13 April 1996):

	a.  The command code of "5A" pertains to 5th Army.  After her unit was realigned from the 63rd ARCOM to the 104th (IT), it appears the realignment resulted in assignment of her higher headquarters to 5th Army.  Yet, again, this code is not prejudicial to the content of the OER and even if incorrect, it is a harmless error that does not invalidate the OER.

	b.  Since this is an annual OER (one year), the ending date of this OER is one year after the beginning date, which is correctly shown on this OER. 

	c.  With respect to the date she signed this OER (1 April 1996); the applicant does not deny that she signed this OER on 1 April 1996.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed this date is correct.  In any case, even if this date is incorrect, there is no evidence she was harmed by this alleged administrative discrepancy.  

	d.  With respect to the entry in Part I(o) wherein the date shows she was given the OER on 2 June 1995; she believes there should be no date entry; the OER should contain a note stating "officer not available to sign; OER mailed to her."  There is no provision to list such language in this block.  But even if there was, the current entry was not prejudicial to the content of the OER.

12.  With respect to the entries on her personnel records, the DA Form 2B and DA Form 2-1 were automated forms that displayed data from various systems, such as SIDPERS.  Data entry was a continuous process and automated forms changed depending on the data entered on any given day.  The two forms submitted by the applicant are dated on two different dates and the data shown on these forms is nothing more than system-generated data for two entirely different time periods. 

13.  With respect to the difference in the major commands shown on the OERs, at the time of her discharge, the Army was going through a transformation and some of the units or commands were renamed.  The USAR also transitioned to a functional alignment of commands, organizing units under like- type command and control elements.  The USARF Schools were realigned under Institutional Training and Exercise Divisions, the 104th Training Division (Institutional Training) being the higher command for the 6224th USARF School.  As the 6224th was a school that provided training, it was aligned under an Institutional Command, whereas schools with missions to observe and evaluate exercises were aligned under the Exercise Divisions. 

14.  In view of the foregoing evidence, the applicant is not entitled to any of the requested relief.

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)                                         AR20110002228



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110002228



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1