IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  21 June 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120001276 


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 his military records to show he was reinstated into the Officer Candidate School (OCS) Program and rescheduled for attendance.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he requested a deferment due to a medical condition; however, he was removed from the list.

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* Email notifying him of his removal from the OCS list, dated 1 July 2009
* All Army Activities (ALARACT) Message 060/2009, dated January 2009, announcing his consideration, selection, and projected attendance date to OCS

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 August 1998.  At the time of his application he was serving on active duty as a master sergeant, pay grade    E-8.

2.  ALARACT Message 060/2009 provided the applicant with an OCS class date of 19 July 2009.

3.  An email, dated 1 July 2009, informed the applicant that his class had been cancelled as he had been removed from the OCS selection list.
4.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Reserve Appointments and Accessions Branch (RAAB), U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Fort Knox, KY.

	a.  The opinion states the applicant was selected for the OCS Program by the January 2009 Department of the Army OCS Board.  He was scheduled to attend OCS Class 013 with a report date of 19 July 2009.

	b.  Prior to attendance, the applicant requested deferment due to an injury. On 1 July 2009, he was removed from his scheduled class.

	c.  The documentation required to reschedule his deferred class date was never coordinated with RAAB.

	d.  On 17 October 2011, the applicant contacted RAAB to request a new class date.  According to internal policy, the applicant had 1 year in which to reschedule.  OCS class slots cannot be held for more than 12 months; therefore, due to inactivity, the applicant lost his offer to attend OCS.

	e.  Based on Military Personnel (MILPER) Message 11-317, the applicant is no longer eligible to reapply for the OCS program.

5.  On 14 February 2012, a copy of the advisory opinion was sent to the applicant for his information and an opportunity to respond.  On 2 April 2012, the applicant responded.

	a.  He provided copies of:

* Request for Orders, dated 16 February 2012 pertaining to his training at Camp Shelby
* A list of his travel vouchers in the Defense Travel System for the period 2008 to 2012
* Orders 071-003, Fort Gordon, Georgia, dated 12 March 2010 with amendment assigning him to Afghanistan with a report date of 6 May 2010
* Orders 273-307, Fort Gordon, Georgia, dated 30 September 2011, assigning him to Fort Hood, Texas with a report date of 10 January 2012
* Memorandum for Record, dated 2 April 2012, from a Chaplain at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, recommending him for attendance in the next available OCS class
* Information sheet from the Army Competitive Category (ACC) Meritorious Appointment Direct Commission Program
* DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) Scorecard), dated
7 August 2009
* MILPER Message 10-164 (Regular Army OCS Program), issued on 
23 June 2010
* MILPER Message 11-317 (Regular Army OCS Program), issued on 
18 October 2011

	b.  In a 5-page letter, the applicant argues that the email dated in 2009 stated he had been removed from the list, not just deferred from a class date.  He states he was told that a class deferment would be no problem; however, after he provided them his medical documents he was removed from the list.

	c.  He states his injury was minor.  In August 2009, he passed the APFT.  He attempted to resolve the matter, but he was told nothing could be done and he would have to reapply the next year.

	d.  He contends that he contacted the OCS staff via phone, who continually informed him that he had to wait 12 months and reapply.  They would not give him a new date.  Unfortunately, he has no documentation of these contacts with the OCS staff.

	e.  He provides documents showing that he had a period of heavy travel that involved training and permanent change of station assignments between 2009 and 2012.

	f.  He provides a Memorandum for Record from a chaplain at Fort Sam Houston, TX.  The chaplain states in part:

He [the applicant] was informed directly by the POC at HRC for OCS that he could reapply within one year, but within that time the OCS rules changed, then a subsequent deployment did not allow that opportunity.  This was at no fault of his own, but primarily due to receiving information directly from the OCS personnel at the time.  He later learned that it is possible to reapply within the year timeframe, but it was too late and the rule change would not allow it.  But this is not the information that he received from the POC for OCS.  

	g.  He argues that there appears to have been a change in personnel on the OCS staff which has degraded his ability to successfully pursue this matter.

	h.  He points out that both the 2010 and the 2011 MILPER messages governing the OCS Program contain provisions that denied him the ability to reapply.

	i.  He argues that the 12-month limit for delay of his attendance was beyond his control due to his mission requirements.

	j.  He summarizes his response by saying he simply wants to be reinstated into the OCS Program to include retaining his original branch of Ordnance.

6.  A DA Form 705, dated August 2009, indicates the applicant was 30 years of age at the time.

7.  MILPER Message 10-164, issued 23 June 2010, states that waivers for        10 years time in service were indefinitely suspended and the age limit for applying was lowered from 38 to 35 years of age.

8.  MILPER Message 11-317, issued 18 October 2011, states that waivers for   10 years time in service were indefinitely suspended and Soldiers in the active component must not have reached their 28th birthday on the date of submission of their OCS packet.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends, in effect. that his military records should be corrected to show he was reinstated into the OCS Program and rescheduled for attendance because his mission requirements prevented him from being rescheduled within the 12-month time limit.

2.  The advisory opinion indicates the applicant's class was deferred, but the email sent to the applicant in 2009 clearly stated he had been removed from the OCS list.  This difference implies that there may have been a misunderstanding between the OCS staff and the applicant.  

3.  However, because the applicant had the desire to attend OCS he had the primary responsibility to submit a timely request to be rescheduled.  He argues that he contacted the OCS staff and was told to wait 12 months and reapply.  The Memorandum for Record from the chaplain at Fort Sam Houston, TX, meant to corroborate his contention, was confusing.  The chaplain first states that the applicant was informed directly by the POC at HRC for OCS that he could reapply within one year.  Then the chaplain stated that the applicant later learned that it was possible to reapply within the year timeframe, “but this is not the information that he received from the POC for OCS.”
4.  Nevertheless, it is true that in the mean time the criteria for applying for OCS changed.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army in August 1998, reaching 10 years of service in August 2008, and in June 2010 (within the 12-month period when he could have re-applied for OCS), waivers for 10 years time in service were suspended.

5.  There is no documentary evidence showing the applicant made a request within the 12-month time limit as required for a new class date, and his argument that he was unjustly denied attendance is not sufficiently supported by the evidence.

6.  In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20120001276



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120001276



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1