IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  19 December 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130007521 


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 a bonus control number be assigned to the Selected Reserve Incentive Program (SRIP) bonus agreement he was offered upon his commissioning in order to receive a $10,000.00 Officer Accession Bonus (OAB).

2.  The applicant states the bonus offered to him was authorized under policies, regulations, and laws in effect on the date the agreement was signed.  He has met his obligations under the agreement in good faith and with exemplary service.  The reasons he has been given for the denial of his bonus have either been demonstrably unfounded or clerical errors on behalf of administrative personnel over which he had no control.

3.  The applicant provides:

* DA Form 597-3 (Army Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) Scholarship Cadet Contract)
* Cadet Command (CC) Form 203-R (Guaranteed Reserve Forces Duty (GRFD) Scholarship Cadet Contract Endorsement)
* three memoranda
* Orders 136-01
* Orders 199-1102
* DA Form 71 (Oath of Office - Military Personnel)
* OAB Addendum
* National Guard Bureau (NGB) 62E (Application for Federal Recognition as an Army National Guard (ARNG) Officer or Warrant Officer and Appointment as a Reserve Commissioned Officer or Warrant Officer of the Army in the ARNG of the United States (ARNGUS))
* Orders 190-1030
* DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report)
* five pages of electronic mail (email)
* a self-authored statement

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.  On 20 November 2006, he executed a DA Form 597-3 and CC Form 203-R to accept a 2-year ROTC scholarship with GRFD.  

3.  On 16 May 2008, he was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the U.S. Army.  In connection with his appointment as an officer and agreement to serve with the ARNGUS under the SRIP, the applicant executed a Written Agreement - OAB Addendum in which he acknowledged that he was being accessed into an Modified Table of Organization and Equipment unit that was not identified as an NGB critical Unit Identification Code and that he would receive a bonus of $10,000.00 paid in two 50 percent installments.  The applicant and a witnessing official authenticated the document with their signatures; however, there was no bonus control number assigned.

4.  The applicant provides an email which shows he began inquiring about submitting an exception to policy to receive the OAB in January 2012.

5.  On 24 January 2013, the Deputy G1, ARNG, denied the applicant's request for an exception to policy to retain the $10,000.00 OAB offered at the time of his commissioning on 16 May 2008, and further stated:
  
   a.  In accordance with ARNG SRIP guidance 07-06 (effective 10 August 2007 through 28 February 2009), eligible applicants were offered the OAB.
 	b.  The applicant was commissioned into the California (CA) ARNG on         16 May 2008 in Area of Concentration (AOC) 35D (Military Intelligence).  The applicant received an ROTC scholarship as a condition of commissioning into the ARNG.  Upon commissioning into the CAARNG, the applicant was placed in an excess position.  Additionally, the bonus control number was not annotated on the written agreement as required by SRIP guidance.  Therefore, the incentive is to be terminated.

   c.  The applicant was informed he may file a claim with the Army Board for Correction of Military Records if he believed an error or injustice existed.
  
6.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained on                23 May 2013, from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1.  The advisory official stated: 

   a.  In order to be eligible for the Selected Reserve (SELRES) OAB as a commissioned officer in the ARNGUS an individual must meet the Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) eligibility criteria published in All Army Activities (ALARACT) message 017/2005 and be appointed in a critically-short AOC listed in the current ARNG SRIP announcement in effect on the date the individual makes application for officer appointment/training or on or before the officer's appointment date.

   b.  Additionally, the ARNG SRIP requires the officer to sign the OAB addendum on the date of commissioning.  A review of the ARNG SRIP in effect when the applicant was commissioned (16 May 2008) indicates his AOC 35D was eligible for the bonus.
   
   c.  The applicant completed the ROTC program as a scholarship recipient with GRFD and was required by his contract to accept a commission in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) or the ARNGUS upon completion of ROTC and serve an eight-year military service obligation after commissioning.  However, he was ineligible for the OAB because ALARACT Message 017/2005 and the OAB agreement indicate the applicant must not be receiving financial assistance under chapters 2107 or 2107a (ROTC scholarship funds).  The exclusion of an ROTC scholarship recipient's eligibility for the OAB was purposeful because the Army already provided a financial incentive (the scholarship funds) for the individual to accept a commission in the Army.  Because it was intended for the agreement to be presented to the officer candidate, cadet, or direct appointment applicant before his or her commissioning date the HQDA policy and OAB agreement were written with a view toward future actions.  While the ARNG determined presentation of the agreement on the officer's commissioning date was a more efficient method to manage the bonus program, the policy and its intent that an ROTC scholarship recipient was not eligible did not change.  Consequently, all new Reserve component officers commissioned through ROTC as scholarship recipients have not been processed for or received the OAB.  It should be noted that the OAB eligibility criteria and execution guidance are being incorporated into Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) and will clarify that applicants may not receive financial assistance under chapters 2107 or 2107a or serve any related service obligation during the OAB service obligation, regardless of when they sign the OAB agreement.
   
   d.  Based upon the discussion in paragraph c above, the Army G-1 recommended disapproval of the applicant's application for payment of the SELRES OAB. 

7.  On 30 May 2013, the applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinion.  On 2 July 2013, he responded with his concurrence; however, he further commented that if any officers commissioned through ROTC as scholarship recipients on or after the date he was commissioned had received an OAB, he would like to submit a formal rebuttal based on such.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request to have a bonus control number assigned to the SRIP bonus agreement he was offered upon his commissioning in order to receive a $10,000.00 OAB has been carefully examined.

2.  The applicant completed the ROTC program as a scholarship recipient with GRFD and was required by his contract to accept a commission in the USAR or the ARNGUS upon completion of ROTC and serve an eight-year military service obligation after commissioning.  

3.  The applicant was ineligible for the OAB because ALARACT Message 017/2005 and the OAB agreement indicate the applicant must not be receiving financial assistance under chapters 2107 or 2107a (ROTC scholarship funds).  The exclusion of an ROTC scholarship recipient's eligibility for the OAB was purposeful because the Army already provided a financial incentive (the scholarship funds) for the individual to accept a commission in the Army.

4.  In view of the foregoing, he is not entitled to 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)                                         AR20130007521



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130007521



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1