IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE:	    1 April 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130010476 


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 an immediate extension of his mandatory removal date (MRD) to 31 March 2014 or 1 April 2014 effective on the date of decision with a new retirement date of 31 March 2014 and transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) or the Individual Mobilization Augmentation (IMA) Program.

2.  If this is not possible, in the alternative, he requests extension of his original retirement date of 31 March 2012 by 90 days to 30 June 2012.

3.  The applicant states he was subjected to several injustices when considered for an MRD extension in 2012.  At the time he submitted a request for an MRD extension due to age, he was serving as the Commander of the 20th Military History Detachment (MHD).  He possesses the required additional skill identifier (ASI) of 5X (Military Historian) as well as Master of History and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degrees.  He applied for an MRD extension twice in 2012.  His first request was for a 1-year extension which included a short deployment and the second request was for 90 additional days to complete the new Field Manual 1-20 (Military History Operations Manual) with a possible shorter deployment of 30 days for field testing.  Both of his requests were denied using identical letters.

	a.  The U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC) stated that Center of Military History (CMH) historical missions could be accomplished in his Department of Defense (DOD) civilian capacity.  This is discriminatory, unjust, and inappropriate.

		(1)  One reason cited by USARC was "[the applicant] can do his job in his civilian capacity as needed" and was not based on any substantive facts.

		(2)  As a troop program unit (TPU) Soldier, his civilian job should not be linked to his military job in any way, shape, or form.  If he were a civilian accountant or firefighter, this justification could not have been used.  To link his military ASI 5X to his DOD civilian job as a basis for MRD inaction was inappropriate and unjust.

	b.  USARC failed to consider an MRD extension based on his unique skills and capabilities (ASI 5X, PhD, rank, position) and the small number of qualified ASI 5X officers available.  USARC focused on the fact that he was an infantry officer and used 11B (Infantry Officer) percentages of grade and branch.  Instead of considering the merits of his historical skill set, his branch was used to justify non-extension.  Furthermore, the method in which infantry branch statistics were used was unjust and inappropriate.

		(1)  Statistically, the USARC calculation of infantry (11B) colonels (COL's) at 6,100 percent measures nothing; at best it says there are 61 infantry COL's in the USAR.  With zero COL infantry positions in the USAR, each COL represents 100 percent.  Technically, USARC could use this statistic to eliminate 60 of the 61 infantry COL's in order to bring this statistic to 100 percent.  To use this statistic to justify eliminating any infantry officer is an injustice.  Since there are zero infantry COL positions in the USAR, perhaps matching them up against area of concentration (AOC) 01A (Branch Immaterial) positions might have given USARC a more accurate statistic on how these officers in the infantry branch have been utilized in the USAR.

		(2)  The USARC memorandum he received denying his MRD extension concluded by saying, "there are many officers within the Infantry branch that need and deserve similar opportunities to prove their merit in challenging positions."  First, this is the writer's personal opinion and, second, it is not infantry officers who should be discussed, but rather ASI 5X historical officers who can make a unique contribution to the Army.  Again, the USARC justification is unjust and inappropriate.

		(3)  USARC provided a chart listing ASI 5X COL's at 300 percent, this statistic was designed to impress and justify removal.  However, there are actually 12 ASI 5X COL's in the USAR, the majority of whom are already in leadership positions and geographically not available.  No ASI 5X COL has ever taken advantage of the "limited opportunity" USARC discusses since the three military history officer COL positions were created in 2008.  There are three MHD military history officer COL positions in the USAR and the applicant occupied one of the three.  In fact, since these three military history officer positions were created in 2008, the other two military history officers with COL positions have been used by commands to promote non-historical officers.  Putting "place-holders" into these ASI 5X positions has rendered the other detachments useless and non-deployable.  In short, the detachments and COL's cannot be used by the CMH for theater-level historical operations.

		(4)  The 11 available ASI 5X COL's have not stepped up.  The command position he vacated (in the 20th MHD) was not filled for 8 months and the new COL was not ASI 5 X qualified when it was filled.

	c.  USARC's failure to understand the shortage of ASI 5X by region, compounded by a failure to account for ineligible ASI 5X officers already occupying positions and positions at the time of his MRD request, is unjust.

		(1)  USARC did accurately conclude that there were three ASI 5X COL's in the southeast region of the United States that were realistically/geographically within proximity of the COL position in the 20th MHD.  There were three, including him.  Of the two other available COL's, one was currently serving as a brigade commander and would not be available for at least 2 years.  The other COL did not take the opportunity the ASI 5X position presented.

		(2)  ASI 5X COL's are more difficult to retain in COL ASI 5X positions than medical doctors, nurses, chaplains, and chaplain assistants.  When truly examined, his MRD extension request should not have been declined based on such small numbers.  In fact, based on the Army's need to have qualified personnel in ASI 5X positions, it should have been accepted.  The MRD extension should also have been accepted based on the fact that the applicant is one of the few military historians in uniform with a PhD.  Furthermore, a quick look at November 2012 USAR statistics shows the actual number of COL's in the USAR was negligible; there were only six COL's above the required strength.

	d.  His MRD submission set reasonable time limits which USARC might have agreed upon.  His submission for an MRD extension of 1 year, and then 90 days, was based on a reasonable timeline in which the mission (project) could be accomplished.  He did not, for example, apply for a 2-year extension as is usually the standard procedure.  A mission-based timeline was submitted which would have resulted in a usable product.  Certainly the extension of an officer for 1 year, or especially 90 days, should not have impacted the officer corps significantly.  If he had been injured or hurt prior to his MRD, he might have been retained on medical hold for the same time period or longer.

	e.  His date of commission was incorrectly listed in a USARC MRD extension denial letter as 17 April 1984, when it is actually 27 April 1984.

	f.  He recommends one of the following courses of action:

* immediate extension with an MRD of 1 April 2014 (age 62)
* placement in the IMA Program so the Center of Military History can bring him on active duty to deploy to Afghanistan to assist the deployed historian and to complete the Field Manual 1-20 which has yet to be completed due to the lack of qualified personnel
* extension of his MRD to 1 July 2012 (3 months) corresponding to the dates he attempted to complete Field Manual 1-20 in a volunteer civilian status – also, it conforms to the date that he filed for retirement

4.  The applicant provides:

* self-authored statement
* eight memoranda
* two PowerPoint slides
* four Excel spreadsheets
* Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPC) Form 4109 (Request for Extension of MRD)
* ARPC Form 871 (MRD Computation)
* Chronological Statement of Retirement Points
* DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record)
* Unit Manning Report (UMR)
* DA Form 7349 (Initial Medical Review-Annual Medical Certification)
* response to advisory opinion

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was born on 17 March 1952 and was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 27 April 1984.  He was 32 years and 1 month of age on the date of his appointment.  Additionally, he held specialty 11B (Infantry Officer) and ASI 5X (Military Historian)

2.  On 20 July 2003, he was issued a Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (20-Year Letter) which notified him he had completed the required years of qualifying reserve service and was eligible for retired pay, on application, upon reaching the age of 60.

3.  On 7 December 2011, he sent an MRD extension request to the USARC G-1 wherein he stated:

	a.  He was requesting a 1-year extension of his MRD to mobilize and participate in and complete historical work pertaining to U.S. Army contingency operations, specifically the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns.

	b.  He was the senior uniformed military historian (ASI 5X) in a USAR TPU.  He was a seasoned writer and researcher with a PhD and deployment experience as a historian.  Additionally, he is a Department of the Army civilian employee and works as the 1st Regional Support Command's (RSC) Command Historian.

	c.  With the end of the Iraq campaign and troop drawdown in Afghanistan, the need for Army historians at the CMH has increased.  He was requesting a 1-year extension in order to deploy to Afghanistan and/or complete work at the CMH.  He also stated a quick look at the USAR revealed few, if any, qualified ASI 5X historians available for his position in the 20th MHD if he retires.  Military historians are presently an AOC which is unique and in short supply.  The CMH also requested extension of his MRD so he could review and help complete a new Field Manual 1-20.

	d.  This request contained two memoranda of support from his unit/chain of command outlining the specific reasons, also stated in his request.

4.  The USARC G-1 responded to his request for an MRD extension in an undated memorandum wherein the USARC G-1 stated the applicant's request for an MRD extension for maximum age was being returned without action because the justification cited in his request failed to meet the necessary requirements in that the justification was not based on mission requirements.

	a.  The Army Reserve was at 6,100-percent strength in his grade and branch, and at 300-percent strength for COL's with ASI 5X.  Overstrengths like this have created limited opportunities and is one of the primary reasons the shaping the force initiative was implemented.  Based on the justifications cited in his request, the applicant could accomplish the stated tasks for the Army Reserve in his civilian capacity as needed.  He is one of twelve COL's for four authorized COL positions in the USAR.  The Chief of the Army Reserve's shaping the force initiative takes precedence.  While the applicant has served admirably in his long career, there are many officers within the infantry branch who need and deserve similar opportunities to prove their merit in challenging positions.

	b.  The applicant's initial date of commissioning (27 April 1982) and his date of birth (17 March 1952) established his MRD for maximum age as 31 March 2012.  The USARC G-1 directed his unit to provide the USARC with a copy of the orders reassigning the applicant to the Retired Reserve, if eligible, or his request for discharge by 1 March 2012.  USARC advised the unit that if orders or a discharge request was not received, USARC would issue the necessary orders effective on his MRD.

5.  U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) Orders B-12-108463, dated 28 December 2011, promoted him to the rank of COL with an effective date and date of rank of 17 December 2011.  He was 59 years and 9 months of age on the effective date of his promotion to COL.

6.  He sent an MRD extension request to the USARC G-1, dated 12 March 2012, wherein he stated:

	a.  He requested a 90-day extension of his MRD to complete the new Field Manual 1-20.  The project could be completed within the 90 days requested.  If the project was completed early, he could be moved to the 2005-2006 Iraq archives to organize the collection.

	b.  He was the senior uniformed military historian (ASI 5X) in a USAR TPU.  He was a seasoned writer and researcher with a PhD and deployment experience as a historian.  Additionally, of the 12 known ASI 5X COL's in the USAR, few have PhD's and those who do were currently working in non-historian positions.  He suggested that his PhD allowed him to make a unique contribution to the Army that was similar to an AOC and that this skill was something the Army needed.

	c.  With the end of the Iraq campaign and troop drawdown in Afghanistan, the need for Army historians at the CMH has increased.  He stated that a quick look at the USAR revealed few, if any, qualified ASI 5X historians available in the MHD's.  He also stated that of the three official MHD's in the USAR, only two have COL's and only one has an actual ASI X5 (himself).  In addition, there were only two COL's in his geographical area, himself and a brigade commander who would not be doing historical work in the near future.  Finally, he stated there were no ASI 5X officers available in the southeastern United States to replace him in the foreseeable future.

7.  The USARC G-1 responded to his request for MRD extension in a memorandum, dated 26 April 2012.  The USARC G-1 stated the applicant's request for an MRD extension for maximum age was being returned without action.  This memorandum is identical to the one he received for his previous request.

8.  HRC Orders P08-946703, dated 1 August 2012, placed him on the Retired List effective 2 April 2012.  He was 60 years and 16 days of age.

9.  His records show he will reach 62 years of age on 17 March 2014.

10.  He provided a memorandum from the Director, Operation Iraqi Freedom Study Group, Office of the Chief of Staff of the Army, dated 3 October 2013, wherein the director requested approval of an extension of his MRD so he could participate in a deployment with the study group.

11.  During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from Headquarters, USARC, dated 21 August 2013.  The Chief, Personnel Management Division, recommended disapproval of the applicant's request and stated:

	a.  In accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), section 14507, USAR commissioned officers in the rank of COL will be removed from an active status upon completion of 30 years of commissioned service or maximum grade, whichever comes first.  Although this section of law establishes the maximum age as 62 years, the Secretary of the Army has established a maximum age of 60 years, which is within his discretion.  Any extension beyond 60 years must be approved by the Secretary of the Army.

	b.  Although the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA) provides for selective continuation on the Reserve Active Status List (RASL) of captains through COL's beyond their MRD for maximum years of service, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASA M&RA) must first determine there is a shortage Army-wide (to include both Army National Guard of the United States and USAR) in a particular grade, AOC, and competitive category.  After the ASA M&RA makes a determination, the ASA M&RA may recommend that the Secretary of the Army convene a Department of the Army selection board under the provisions of Title 10, USC, section 14101(b), to identify those officers to be retained to meet the needs of the Army.  The ASA M&RA has established selective continuation policies to meet the needs of today's USAR which negates the need for the selective continuation board at this time.  If and when the ASA M&RA determines a need for and elects to convene a board for selective continuation of officers of a shortage grade and category, eligible officers will be notified of the decision and, if they desire, must apply for consideration.

	c.  The justification cited in the applicant's MRD extension requests failed to meet a mission-based reason for his continued active service.  As the USAR is at 6,100-percent strength in his grade and branch, and is at 300-percent strength for COL's with ASI 5X, there are limited opportunities, and one of the main purposes for which the shaping the force initiative was implemented.  Despite the applicant's claim to be the USAR's senior uniformed military historian, the applicant is one of 12 COL's for 4 authorized COL positions in the USAR.  The need to meet the Chief of the Army Reserve's shaping the force initiative takes precedence.  While the applicant has served admirably in his long career, there are many officers within the infantry branch who need and deserve similar opportunities to prove their merit in challenging positions.

	d.  The applicant was appointed on 27 April 1984.  He would have completed 30 years of commissioned service on 27 April 2014.  However, based on his date of birth (17 March 1952), the applicant reached age 60 on 17 March 2012.  Based on Title 10, USC, section 14507, paragraph 2a, his removal from an active status was required at that time.

	e.  The applicant's date of initial commissioning (27 April 1984) in the USAR is correct in the USAR personnel database of record.  Although his commissioned service date was incorrectly stated as 27 April 1982 in USARC G-1 memorandum, dated 26 April 2012, subject:  Retention Beyond MRD (Age) – (Applicant), this had no impact on his removal from an active status since his removal was based on reaching maximum age.

	f.  Based upon the above guidance, the applicant was reassigned to the Retired Reserve Control Group per USARC Orders 12-065-00016 effective 31 March 2012.  He was subsequently placed on the Retired List effective 2 April 2012 by HRC Orders P-08-946703, dated 1 August 2012, and authorized retired pay under Title 10 USC, section 12731.

12.  The applicant responded to the USARC advisory opinion in a memorandum, dated 4 October 2013, wherein he stated:

	a.  The issues noted in the advisory opinion pertaining to Title 10 USC, section 14507, ROPMA, and Title 10 USC, section 14101(b), should not be considered by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) because these justifications, now cited by USARC, were not included or used in the two identical letters disapproving his two MRD extension requests.

	b.  The Chief of Staff of the Army Operation Iraqi Freedom Study Group requests approval of his MRD extension with a retirement date of 31 March 2014. 
The Chief of Staff of the Army directed the creation this study group and the program director requested the use of the applicant as a uniformed writer/researcher on this project for the 5-6 months of USAR service he would have remaining if the ABCMR made a favorable decision.  This is a mission-based reason for MRD extension, as were his other submitted reasons.


	c.  He requested the following action:

		(1)  approval of his MRD extension effective on the date of decision with a new retirement date of 31 March 2014;

		(2)  if so approved, transfer to the IRR or IMA Program so the study group can immediately order him to active duty; or

		(3)  barring these outcomes, extension of his original retirement date by 90 days to 30 June 2013 based on work he voluntarily attempted to do on Field Manual 1-20 for the CMH.

13.  Army Regulation 140-10 (Army Reserve – Assignments, Attachments, Details, and Transfers) prescribes policy and procedures for assigning, attaching, removing, and transferring USAR Soldiers.  Chapter 7 (Removal from Active Status) relates to removal of Soldiers from an active status and states that Soldiers removed from an active status will be discharged or, if qualified and if they so request, will be transferred to the Retired Reserve.  Paragraph 7-3 (Maximum Age) further states that field and company-grade officers not sooner removed for another reason will be removed when they reach their maximum age of 60.  The removal date will be the last day of the month in which they reach age 60.

14.  Title 10, USC, section 101(d)(4), states the term "active status" means the status of a member of the Reserve Component who is not in the Inactive Army National Guard, on an Inactive Status List, or in the Retired Reserve.

15.  Title 10 USC, section 14509 (Separation at Age 62:  Reserve Officers in Grades Below Brigadier General (BG) or Rear Admiral (Lower Half)), states that each Reserve officer of the Army in a grade below BG who has not been recommended for promotion to the grade of BG and is not a member of the Retired Reserve shall, on the last day of the month in which that officer becomes 62 years of age, be separated in accordance with section 14515 of this title.

16.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 14507(b), states that each Reserve officer of the Army who holds the grade of COL on the RASL and who is not on a list of officers recommended for promotion to the next higher grade shall be removed from the RASL on the first day of the month after the month in which the officer completes 30 years of commissioned service.

17.  Title 10 USC, section 14515 (Discharge or Retirement for Age), states that each Reserve officer of the Army who is in an active status or on an Inactive Status List and who reaches the maximum age specified in section 14509, 14510, 14511, or 14512, of this title for the officer's grade or position, not later than the last day of the month in which the officer reaches that maximum age (unless the officer is sooner separated or the officer's separation is deferred or the officer is continued in an active status under another provision of law), shall:

	a.  be transferred to the Retired Reserve if the officer is qualified for such transfer and does not request (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned) not to be transferred to the Retired Reserve; or

	b.  be discharged from the officer's Reserve appointment if the officer is not qualified for transfer to the Retired Reserve or has requested (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned) not to be so transferred.

18.  Title 10 USC, section 14701 (Selection of Officers for Continuation on the RASL), states a Reserve officer of the Army who is required to be removed from the RASL under section 14507 of this title may, subject to the needs of the service and to section 14509 of this title, be considered for continuation on the RASL under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  USARC initially denied the applicant's requests for an extension of his MRD because the justification was not based on mission requirements.  USARC also indicated the reason was due to strength requirements in his grade and skill set.  Furthermore, in accordance with Army regulations, USARC and the Army as a whole have the authority to remove Soldiers/COL's from military service the last day of the month in which they reach age 60.  In the applicant's case that date was 31 March 2012.

2.  The USAR has been undergoing significant force structure changes and, as a result, USARC has been forced to make some difficult decisions regarding reducing the force to meet these force structure requirements.

	a.  The applicant had provided a significant amount of data regarding the strength of his rank, branch, and ASI.  He has also argued that his PhD and experience make his retention necessary.  However, USARC had access to all of his personnel information, the necessary statistics and strength data, position data, job descriptions/position requirements, and the personnel records of other military personnel in his grade, branch, and with the same ASI.  Therefore, they were in a unique position to see the full picture.  With the necessity of restructuring the force and the applicant's approaching MRD, USARC appropriately made the decision to remove him from military service and place him on the Retired List.

	b.  The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show he was the only Soldier in the USAR who was qualified to fill his position or that no other Soldier of similar rank, branch, and ASI could complete the mission he requested MRD extensions to accomplish.  He also has not convincingly shown the missions he requested an extension to fill/complete were so significant that the lack of his presence would cause complete mission failure for the USAR or the Army.

3.  As an alternative, he requested an extension of his original retirement date by 90 days to 30 June 2012 based on work he voluntarily attempted to do on Field Manual 1-20 for the CMH.  However, this is not sufficient justification for extending his retirement effective date.  It is clear that he volunteered to work on this project after his retirement because he felt the work was important and necessary.  However, he did not complete this work in a military capacity nor was he required or extended by the Army to complete this work.

4.  Based on the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to grant 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 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)                                         AR20130010476



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130010476



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1