Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004966
Original file (20130004966.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	 

		BOARD DATE:	 5 December 2013 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130004966 


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 voidance of his discharge and transfer to the Retired Reserve. 

2.  The applicant states he completed over 33 years of active and reserve service and he was separated by a board action.  He was honorably discharged and is eligible for retirement benefits and believes he should be placed in the Retired Reserve in order to receive all of the associated benefits (removal from grey area) and access to military facilities, cost of living raises, and records management by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC).  He also states in a separate letter that the action taken to discharge him was taken
5 years after he received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) and also caused him to be discharged from his civil service position as a technician with the Army Reserve.  In addition to the tremendous financial loss he has incurred, he will lose yearly cost of living raises and pay increases that he would have been afforded if he was transferred to the Retired Reserve.

3.  The applicant provides a one-page letter explaining his application, discharge orders, Honorable Discharge Certificate, 20-Year Letter, a memorandum recommending that he not be involuntarily discharged, an Army Commendation Medal Certificate, and his notification of elimination.


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was born on 11 February 1956.  He was serving as a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) lieutenant colonel (LTC) when he received his 20-Year letter on 23 September 1999.

2.  He was serving as a LTC and military technician when he received a GOMOR on 23 May 2005 at Fort Lewis, WA.  The GOMOR was directed to be filed in his official records.

3.  On 13 December 2010, the applicant was notified that he was required to show cause for retention because of substandard performance of duty and moral or professional dereliction as evidenced by his receipt of a GOMOR in 2005.  He was further advised that he had the right to submit his resignation in lieu of involuntary separation, request transfer to the Retired Reserve in lieu of elimination, or to request his case be acted upon by a board of officers.

4.  Although not present in the available records, the applicant elected to appear before a board of officers.  After reviewing the applicant’s presentation and evidence of record, the board of officers recommended the applicant be separated.

5.  On 18 September 2011, he was honorably discharged from the USAR.

6.  On 28 October 2011, he was notified that a decision had been made to remove him from his position as an IT Specialist (GS-12) and terminate his Federal employment effective 18 November 2011 due to his failure to maintain a basic condition of employment (Selected Reserve membership).

7.  Army Regulation 135-175 (Separation of Officers) provides policy, criteria, and procedures for the separation of officers of the Army National Guard of the United States and the USAR.  It provides:

	a.  in paragraph 2-3 that an officer with 20 or more years of qualifying Federal service for retired pay who is being considered for involuntary separation will be given an opportunity to elect transfer to the Retired Reserve in lieu of involuntary separation.

	b.  that the orders discharging a Soldier will not be revoked or the effective date changed after the effective date of discharge unless there is evidence of manifest error or fraud.  After the effective date of discharge, orders may be amended by the separation authority only to correct manifest errors such as the wrong character of service or correct administrative errors such as errors concerning rank, social security number or misspelled name.

8.  On 29 October 1999, a memorandum issued by the Under Secretary of Defense states that former members of the Reserve Components who are eligible to receive retired pay at age 60 under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 12731, but who have terminated their Reserve status, are entitled to receive benefits provided for under Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 54.  Identification (ID) cards reflecting the appropriate benefits have been available at Real-time Automated Personnel Identification System (RAPIDS) sites since December 1999.  Reservists with more than 20 years of qualifying service for retired pay at age 60 and who have terminated their Reserve status must simply take their 20-year letter to those facilities in order to obtain an ID card.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-175 was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  Accordingly, the discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

2.  The applicant was afforded the opportunity to elect transfer to the Retired Reserve in lieu of elimination; however, he elected not to do so.

3.  The applicant is requesting transfer to the Retired Reserve simply because he is concerned that he will lose entitlement to the benefits associated with having completed 20 or more years of service.  However, the applicant still has the entitlement to apply for retired pay at age 60 and to obtain an ID card prior to age 60, even though he has been discharged from the USAR.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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)                                         AR20130004966



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130004966



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120014041

    Original file (20120014041.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). If it were determined the applicant was mission essential to the project and if he must continue to film Soldiers for "An Army of One" video, the IO recommended that someone be present. On 28 June 2012, the Army Grade Determination Review Board reviewed the request for a grade determination on the applicant.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016408

    Original file (20130016408.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests reconsideration of the portion of his previous application pertaining to: * promotion reconsideration by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC)/O-5 under the criteria for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 and FY 2009 * reconsideration of his application for appointment as an Engineer Branch warrant officer 2. The Board further determined there was no evidence showing he had completed the required military education to be considered for promotion...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130002709

    Original file (AR20130002709.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was a USAR officer on active duty when his unit initiated elimination proceedings against him under AR 600-8-24, which applies to officers serving on active duty. On 29 December 2011, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. After examining the applicant’s record of service, the documents and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004780

    Original file (20120004780.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests correction of his discharge orders from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) to show he was transferred to the Retired Reserve. He had sufficient time in the ALARNG to be placed in the Retired Reserve and he would have elected to transfer to the Retired Reserve if he had received notification. Notwithstanding the advisory opinion's recommendation, in view of the fact that the applicant was not notified to be given the opportunity to elect to be transferred to the Retired...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012333

    Original file (20090012333.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Accordingly, the commander was within his authority to impose NJP against the applicant once he had determined that the applicant had committed offenses that so warranted and there appears to be no basis to remove the record of NJP from his records. The applicant's contention that his security clearance and access to classified information should be restored by the Board because DOHA made such a recommendation has been noted.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120014314

    Original file (20120014314.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    A memorandum, dated 15 August 2006, appointed COL S____ as an investigating officer (IO) pursuant to Army Regulation 15-6 to investigate allegations that the 353rd EN GP MT's abused RST's; violated command policies regarding ATA's, overtime, and compensatory time; and violated pay input internal controls. A second memorandum, dated 25 September 2006, appointed COL D____ as an IO pursuant to Army Regulation 15-6 to investigate allegations that the 353rd EN GP MT's abused RST's; violated...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022085

    Original file (20110022085.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states he: * had prior honorable enlisted service in the U.S. Navy from 1968 to 1974 * was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer on 4 June 1978 * completed 20 years of commissioned service on 4 June 1998 * had a mandatory release date (MRD) of 4 June 2002 * was honorably discharged on 31 May 2005 a. He states that Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers) provides that a MAJ on the Reserve Active Status...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009277

    Original file (20120009277.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The memorandum stated the action was based on the following specific reasons for elimination: * a series of substantiated derogatory activity resulting in a GOMOR, dated 12 May 2010 and a referred Officer Evaluation Report for the period 24 May 2007 - 30 June 2010, which were filed in his official military personnel file * conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated by the foregoing items 6. On 18 April 2012, the applicant submitted a request for a retired grade determination in the rank of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003169

    Original file (20140003169.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provided a letter from his immediate supervisor and rater at the time of the allegation, dated 1 November 2013, who stated: a. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) governs operation of the ABCMR. With regard to the applicant's new request for a personal appearance hearing, the Board determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015892

    Original file (20090015892.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Paragraph 2-20 of Army Regulation 135-175 further prescribes the following actions may be taken by area commanders on recommendations of a board of officers acting on involuntary separation cases, if the area commander in his review of a case in which involuntary separation has been recommended by the board of officers notes a substantial defect, in the proceedings, he will take action as follows: a. However, this board improperly considered the applicant's GOMOR since it was the subject of...