IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE:	    22 April 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130011893


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.  reinstatement in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR);

	b.  approval of a "hardship" waiver for the military education (MILED) required for promotion to the rank of major (MAJ);

	c.  promotion to the rank of MAJ;

	d.  payment of all back pay and allowances associated with the error in his service calculation since he was paid without recognition of the correct number of previous years served;

	e.  approval of a "hardship" waiver, exception to policy, or reconsideration of the window of eligibility and eligibility requirements for the Blue to Green transfer/enlistment bonus;

	f.  payment of the Blue to Green transfer/enlistment bonus;

	g.  payment of the Foreign Language Proficiency Bonus (FLPB) for the period September 2008 through September 2009;

	h.  approval of a "hardship" waiver or exception to policy and reconsideration of the annual re-testing, renewal, or recertification requirements for the FLPB for the period September 2009 through September 2010;

	i.  payment of the FLPB for the period September 2009 through September 2010;

	j.  approval of a "hardship" waiver or exception to policy and reconsideration of the annual re-testing, renewal, or recertification requirements for the FLPB for the period September 2010 through September 2011;

	k.  payment of the FLPB for the period September 2010 through September 2011;

	l.  approval of a "hardship" waiver or exception to policy and reconsideration of the annual re-testing, renewal, or recertification requirements for the FLPB for the period September 2011 through September 2012;

	m.  payment of the FLPB for the period September 2011 through September 2012;

	n.  payment of unpaid travel claims for annual training he performed in Atlanta, GA, during the period 18-21 August 2011;

	o.  payment for six 4-hour battle assemblies (inactive duty training) for which he not been paid;

	p.  assistance getting his military pay records from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to be used to find and regain his missing retirement points, receive credit for extra qualifying years, and update his total number of qualifying years of military service; and

	q.  expedition of his requests so he can be made whole as soon as possible.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  He was relatively new in the USAR, having recently transferred from the U.S. Naval Reserve (USNR).

	b.  He was discharged from the USAR as a two-time non-selectee for promotion to MAJ.

	c.  He was non-selected for promotion to MAJ because he was not able to meet the Army MILED requirements due to circumstances beyond his control, such as:

* a lack of mentorship
* a very steep learning curve attributable to his relatively recent transfer from the USNR
* a relatively short amount of time between his accession into the USAR and his first year for promotion consideration
* the operational demands placed on his unit
* the fact that the Navy's MILED requirements are not the same as the Army's MILED requirements
* his integration into the Army culture was not well executed
* et cetera

	d.  As attested to in the attached statements from military commanders and his supervisor, he encountered several obstacles upon his accession into the USAR:

* he was already a senior O-3 in the USNR when he transferred to the USAR and he was not made aware that he would be considered for promotion to MAJ within a relatively short time
* he was immediately in "promotion peril" because he had no time to meet Army MILED requirements – he should have been made aware of this fact
* to compound his problems, his team leader and supervisor (same person) was deployed to Afghanistan which left a void in his military development and resulted in the absence of effective mentorship and supervision

	e.  He contacted the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) Officer Promotions Branch for assistance and to request exemption from the MILED requirements or exemption from board consideration.  His request was denied.

	f.  The HRC Officer Promotions Branch informed him of the MILED waiver for which he did not qualify because he had not completed the first phase (distance learning) of his Engineer Captains Career Course (CCC).

	g.  The HRC Officer Promotions Branch did not inform him of the MILED "hardship" waiver.

	h.  He qualified for a MILED "hardship" waiver based on the relatively short amount of time between his accession into the USAR and his first promotion consideration, the operational tempo of his unit, and the very steep learning curve attributable to his transfer from the USNR.

3.  In a separate 2-page addendum accompanying his Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) application, the applicant states the critical factors (individually and collectively) that prevented him from having a smooth transition, development, and progress in the USAR, and which prevented him from meeting the minimum MILED requirements for promotion to MAJ, including:

	a.  his relatively recent transfer from the USNR to the USAR;

	b.  the timing of his accession into the USAR from the USNR;

	c.  the lack or absence of an effective mentor to guide him through navigating the intricacies of Army rules and culture;

	d.  the very steep learning curve attributable to his relatively recent transfer from the USNR to the USAR;

	e.  the extremely short amount of time between his accession into the USAR on 20 March 2009 and his first consideration by the MAJ Promotion Board on 2 March 2010;

	f.  the relatively short amount of time between his consideration by the MAJ Promotion Board on 2 March 2010 and his second consideration by the MAJ Promotion Board on 11 March 2011.  This period was relatively short considering the cumulative effects of the devastating, destabilizing, demoralizing, and stressful impacts of all the critical factors combined;

	g.  his assignment to a newly-established contracting battalion.  Although his primary area of concentration (AOC) was 12A (Engineer, General) and his secondary AOC was 51C (Contract Management Officer), he was assigned to a newly-established contracting battalion – which is how he became alienated and distanced from the mentoring in an engineer battalion;

	h.  his unit was newly created and faced numerous challenges getting resources – as generally faced by similarly-situated new units;

	i.  the MILED training necessary to meet promotion requirements was not the priority; contracting qualification training was his unit's priority;

	j.  the issues, implications, and dilemmas he faced as an engineer officer with a MILED requirement centered on his engineer specialty, while at the same time having additional contracting and logistical responsibilities to satisfy the operational requirements of his unit; and

	k.  the competing and conflicting demands of the operational mission requirements of his assigned unit and the MILED requirements necessary to advance his career.

4.  The applicant provides:

* ABCMR application continuation pages (labeled pages 3-4)
* separate addenda (labeled pages 5-7)
* five memoranda of support from military commanders and a statement from his psychologist (labeled pages 8-13)
* 27-page self-authored statement (labeled pages 14-40)
* second copy of the five memoranda of support from military commanders and a statement from his psychologist (labeled pages 41-46)

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 12 April 1997, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer in the USNR in the rank/grade of ensign/O-1.  On 1 April 2001, he was promoted to the rank/grade of lieutenant/O-3.

2.  On 20 March 2009 following prior service in the USNR, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer in the USAR in the Engineer Branch in the rank/grade of CPT/O-3.  His appointment memorandum shows he was reappointed in the current grade held (O-3) and his pay entry basic date and date of rank (DOR) would not change.

3.  The HRC Interactive Web Services transaction summaries show multiple entries pertaining to the applicant.

	a.  On 19 November 2009, the applicant communicated with his assignment officer at HRC in which he stated, "I did an inter-service transfer from the US Navy Reserve into the US Army Reserve effective March 20, 2009.  Although my O-3 DOR in the Navy Reserve was 2001APR01 [1 April 2001], I did not envisage that I would have to go before the MAJOR SELECTION BOARD in the Army Reserve so soon.  I have not completed any CCC yet.  Also, I do not have any Army OER [Officer Evaluation Reports] yet.  Please advise."

	b.  On 19 November 2009, his assignment officer responded, "Yes, you will go before the March 2010 promotion board.  If you are not Mil[itary] Education qualified your only option would be to request an education waiver.  If that is not approved you will be passed over and looked at again for the March 2011 board. That would be you're "2nd Look."  Recommend you focus on completing Phase  2 prior to the end of December and get a reservation for Phase 3 in April or June 2010.  You also need to have your TPU [troop program unit] update your information in RLAS [Regional Level Application Software] (APFT [Army Physical Fitness Test], Physical, Height/Weight, etc.)."

	c.  On 19 November 2009, the applicant asked, "Please can you tell me how to request an education waiver?  Is there any form or paperwork to be completed to request an education waiver?"

	d.  On 19 November 2009, his assignment officer responded, "Attached is an example of a Mil Ed [sic] waiver, you will not have to send this in until around Feb[ruary] 2010 when the board meets."  Attached to this response is an example of a request for an education waiver.

4.  He was considered by the Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10) Reserve Components (RC) MAJ, Army Promotion List (APL), Promotion Selection Board, which convened on or about 2 March 2010.  He was not selected for promotion.  This constituted his first non-selection for promotion.

5.  He was considered by the FY11 RC MAJ, APL, Promotion Selection Board, which convened on or about 8 March 2011.  He was not selected for promotion.  This constituted his second non-selection for promotion.

6.  On 10 November 2011, he was notified by memorandum that he had been considered but not selected for promotion after his second consideration.  The notification memorandum informed him that he was subject to mandatory separation as a result of his second non-selection.

7.  He was separated from the USAR on 1 March 2012 by reason of being twice non-selected for promotion to MAJ.  His discharge orders are not available for review.

8.  His records are void of documentation that indicates:

* he enrolled in or completed any phases of the Engineer Officer CCC, his required MILED for promotion to MAJ
* he was eligible to receive a Blue to Green transfer/enlistment bonus at the time of his appointment in the USAR
* he was denied payment of a Blue to Green transfer/enlistment bonus
* he was tested and determined to be proficient in the Yoruba language as recorded on a DA Form 330 (Language Proficiency Questionnaire)
* he submitted an application for a FLPB and was denied payment of the FLPB
* he was denied various other payments, including unpaid battle assemblies or travel claims for periods of annual training
* he addressed his pay issues with his servicing Finance and Accounting Office (FAO)

9.  On 9 August 2013, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Officer Promotions Branch Management, HRC, in the processing of this case, who rendered the following opinion:

	a.  The applicant's assertion that he was erroneously and involuntarily discharged/separated for being twice non-selected for promotion to MAJ has merit; however, his assertion that he was disadvantaged by not being granted a MILED waiver for promotion consideration to MAJ is without merit and moot.

	b.  The applicant served in the Navy until November 2008 and was appointed as a CPT in the USAR on 20 March 2009 with an adjusted DOR of 1 April 2001.  He clearly did not have 1 year on the Reserve Active Status List (RASL) as required by Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), section 14301(a), when the FY10 RC MAJ, APL, Promotion Selection Board convened on 2 March 2010.  Therefore, he should have been ineligible for consideration by that board.  His non-selection by that board was erroneous and should be administratively removed/vacated.

	c.  The applicant was considered for promotion to MAJ by the FY11 RC MAJ, APL, Promotion Selection Board; however, he was not recommended for promotion due to his MILED status.  He was not recommended for selective continuation by the FY11 RC MAJ, APL, Promotion Selection Board, and, as such, was discharged based on being twice non-selected for promotion.  This non-selection should have been counted as has first non-selection and he should have been further retained.

	d.  In order to be eligible for a MILED waiver for MAJ Promotion Selection Boards, an officer must have served 12 or more cumulative months (need not be consecutively served) of documented deployment time outside the continental United States within the 36 months preceding the convening date of the mandatory promotion board.  Also, they must have completed, at a minimum, the non-resident portion of their Officer Advanced Course (OAC) or CCC and be scheduled for the resident phase.  The applicant did not meet these criteria and he never requested or was granted a MILED waiver.

	e.  The applicant could petition the Army G-3/5/7 for equivalent credit for the Army CCC based on any equivalent Navy course he may have completed.  However, this would not normally qualify him for consideration by a special section board (SSB) as granting such credit is not retroactive.

	f.  The advisory opinion does not address the requirements for receiving a "hardship" MILED waiver as identified by the applicant in his opening statement.

10.  On 23 August 2013, the applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinion.  On 6 and 30 September 2013, the applicant responded to the advisory opinion.  In his responses, he agreed in part with some of the opinions rendered by the advisory official; however, he disagreed in part with others.  In summary, he stated the following:

	a.  He agrees with the advisory official's statement vis-à-vis his erroneous non-selection by the FY10 RC MAJ, APL, Promotion Selection Board, which ultimately led to his erroneous separation/discharge as a twice non-selected officer.

	b.  He disagrees with the advisory official's statement vis-à-vis his eligibility for a MILED waiver as the advisory official made no mention of his eligibility for a "hardship" MILED waiver, a waiver he qualified for based on his communications with the USAR Command Office of the Inspector General.

11.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve – Promotion of Commissioned Officer and Warrant Officer Other than General Officers) prescribes the policies and procedures for the promotion of Reserve officers.

	a.  Paragraph 2-5a (Eligibility for Consideration) states a USAR officer must have continuously performed service on either the RASL or the Active Duty List (or a combination of both lists) during the 1-year period ending on the convening date of the promotion board to be eligible for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade.

	b.  Table 2-2 (Military Educational Requirements Commissioned Officers, Other Than Commissioned Warrant Officers Grade) states the MILED requirement for promotion from CPT to MAJ is completion of any OAC or CCC.

	c.  Promotion reconsideration by an SSB may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error which existed in the record at the time of consideration.  Material error in this context is one or more errors of such a nature that, in the judgment of the reviewing official (or body), it caused an individual's non-selection by a promotion board and, had such error(s) been corrected at the time the individual was considered, a reasonable chance would have resulted that the individual would have been recommended for promotion.  The regulation also provides that boards are not required to divulge the proceedings or the reason(s) for non-selection, except where an individual is not qualified due to non-completion of required military schooling.

12.  Army Regulation 140-10 (Army Reserve – Assignments, Attachments, Details, and Transfers) prescribes policies, responsibilities, and procedures pertaining to the assignment, attachment, detail, removal, and/or transfer of USAR Soldiers, including commissioned officers.  Paragraph 7-4 (Non-selection for Promotion) provides for the removal of officers who are twice non-selected for promotion to MAJ.

13.  Military Personnel (MILPER) Message 09-269, dated 10 November 2009, subject:  FY10, MAJ, APL, Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS), Army Reserve Active Guard/Reserve (AR AGR), and Army Reserve Non-Active Guard/Reserve (AR NON-AGR), Competitive Categories, Promotion Selection Boards, announced the following:

	a.  A mandatory Department of the Army Selection Board would convene on or about 2 March 2010 to consider Reserve of the Army CPT's for promotion to MAJ.

	b.  Army Regulation 135-155, Table 2-2, lists the MILED requirements for promotion selection.  The MILED requirements must be completed no later than the day before the board convened.  Evidence that an officer had completed the MILED requirements must be in the officer's My Board File (MBF).  The MILED requirement for promotion from CPT to MAJ is any OAC, CCC, or equivalent.

	c.  Officers not having attained the requisite MILED may request a waiver.

14.  MILPER Message 10-329, dated 17 December 2010, subject:  FY11, MAJ, ARNGUS, AR AGR, and AR NON-AGR, APL Competitive Categories, Promotion Selection Boards), announced the following:

	a.  A mandatory Department of the Army Selection Board would convene on or about 8 March 2011 to consider Reserve of the Army APL CPT's for promotion to MAJ.

	b.  Army Regulation 135-155, Table 2-2, lists the MILED requirements for promotion selection.  The MILED requirements must be completed no later than the day before the board convened.  Evidence that an officer completed the MILED requirements must be in the officer's MBF.  The MILED requirement for promotion from CPT to MAJ is any OAC, CCC, or equivalent.

	c.  Officers not having completed the requisite MILED may request a waiver.  In accordance with Army Regulation 135-155, the Chief, Department of the Army Promotions, is the approval authority for all requests for exception to non-statutory promotion requirements.  CPT's must have completed, at a minimum, the non-resident portion of the CCC and be scheduled for the resident phase to be granted a MILED waiver for promotion.

	d.  MILED waiver requests, based on hardship or other justification of an exceptional nature meriting favorable consideration, must include an endorsement from the chain of command.  The memorandum used will state the officer is granted a MILED waiver for promotion purposes only, and the waiver approval does not constitute constructive credit or any other equivalency for the respective course.

	e.  Failure to comply with the instructions contained in this message will be viewed as a "lack of due diligence" on the part of the officer.

15.  Operation Blue to Green offered qualified Air Force and Navy personnel an opportunity to continue to serve their country, to maintain the benefits of military service, and to expand their horizons by gaining new training and trying new things.  It facilitated the transfer of qualified Air Force and Navy personnel to active duty in the Army, depending on their service's willingness to release the individual from his/her current active service obligation.

16.  Army Regulation 11-6 (Army Foreign Language Program) describes the Army Foreign Language Program.  It establishes policies and procedures for the management of Army linguists, language-capable Soldiers, and command language programs.

	a.  Paragraph 5-12 (Language Proficiency Questionnaire) states a DA Form 330 is the only document for reporting foreign language proficiency, award of special qualification identifier (SQI) L (Linguist), and eligibility for Foreign Language Proficiency Pay or the FLPB.

	b.  Paragraph 6-1 (Overview) states the FLPB is a monthly monetary bonus paid to officers, warrant officers, and enlisted personnel who maintain the required proficiency in designated foreign language(s) in accordance with the Army's needs.

	c.  Paragraph 6-3 (Criteria for Individual Soldier Eligibility) states Active Army Soldiers must be on active duty and entitled to basic pay.  The effective date of the FLPB payment will be the date of the Defense Language Proficiency Test.

	d.  Paragraph 6-4 (Amount of Payment) states the FLPB payment level (see Table 6-2) is determined by proficiency ratings (see Table 6-2) and language payment list (see Table 6-3).

		(1)  Table 6-2 (Payment Levels) lists payment rates and Table 6-3 lists authorized languages.  The African language Yoruba is authorized this pay.

		(2)  Table 6-3 (Language Payment Lists) identifies approved languages within payment lists "A," "B," and "C."  This table shows the languages of Africa (including Yoruba) are considered Army selected languages for payment list "B."

	e.  Paragraph 6-6 (Annual Certification) states annual certification is a requirement for FLPB.  Orders authorizing FLPB are effective for not longer than 12 months from the recertification date.

17.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), the regulation under which this Board operates, provides Department of the Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions regarding an applicant's request for the correction of military records.  Paragraph 2-5 (Administrative Remedies) provides that the ABCMR will not consider an application until the applicant has exhausted all administrative remedies to correct the alleged error or injustice.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's numerous requests were carefully considered.  

2.  He raises several issues, including reinstatement in the USAR, approval of a MILED waiver, consideration by an SSB, and/or in the alternative, promotion to the rank of MAJ.

3.  Following appointment in the USAR, the applicant's DOR was adjusted to 1 April 2001.  

4.  The maximum time-in-grade requirement for promotion from CPT to MAJ is 7 years in the lower grade.  Additionally, the military education requirement for promotion from CPT to MAJ is completion of any OAC or CCC.  Since he was appointed in the USAR in 2009, he was subject to mandatory promotion consideration by the first available board.

5.  He was considered and non-selected by the FY10 and FY11 RC MAJ, APL, Promotion Selection Boards.  The exact reasons he was not selected are unknown.  The decision to recommend an officer for promotion is based on the criteria established by the Secretary of the Army and the collective judgment of the respective board members as to the relative merit of an officer's overall record when compared to the records of other officers being considered.  It can only be concluded that the previous promotion boards determined that his overall record, when compared with the records of his contemporaries in the zone of consideration, did not reflect as high a potential as those selected for promotion.

6.  By law and regulation, an officer who is twice non-selected for promotion must be discharged or, if otherwise qualified, may be transferred to the Retired Reserve.  The applicant was, in fact, separated from the USAR as a two-time non-selectee.

7.  However, his request for reinstatement in the USAR has merit, based on his contention that he was erroneously considered for promotion in 2010.  The evidence of record shows he was, in fact, erroneously considered for promotion to MAJ in 2010 since he did not have 1 year on the RASL on the date the board convened.

8.  The evidence of record shows he was considered but not selected by the FY10 RC MAJ, APL, Promotion Selection Board, which constitutes the first of two consecutive non-selections by promotion selection boards.  This first non-selection for promotion was erroneous and constitutes a material error.  

9.  He was not selected by the FY10 RC MAJ, APL, Promotion Selection Board in 2010 and this non-selection constituted the first of two non-selections that ultimately led to his separation from military service.  He would not have been subject to separation had he properly been eliminated from consideration in 2010.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to void his first non-selection and submit his records to a duly-constituted SSB for consideration under the 
FY12-year criteria.  If selected for promotion to MAJ by an SSB, then:

	a.  his discharge orders from the USAR should be revoked and he should be reinstated in the USAR with entitlement to service credit at the minimum number of retirement points (50) for each retirement year and with entitlement to associated pay and allowances; and

	b.  his Army Reserve Personnel Command Form 249-E (Chronological Statement of Retirement Points) should be adjusted to credit him with 




50 retirement points for each retirement year of service since his erroneous discharge.

10.  His second non-selection for promotion by the FY11 RC MAJ, APL, Promotion Selection Board should have constituted his first non-selection since he was erroneously considered and non-selected by the FY10 board.  This non-selection is not in error and should remain in his records.

11.  His contention that he should be promoted to MAJ is without merit; however, it would be appropriate to void his non-selection by the FY10 RC MAJ, APL, Promotion Selection Board and to have his records considered by an SSB under the FY12 RC MAJ, APL, Promotion Selection Board criteria.

12.  His contention that he should be granted a "hardship" waiver for his MILED requirements for promotion to the rank of MAJ is rejected.  The evidence clearly shows that not only was he informed of the MILED waiver requirements as early as November 2009, the relevant MILPER message also contained specific guidance pertaining to requesting waivers of MILED requirements.  The fact that he was either unaware of the MILPER message or that he chose not to exercise that option underscores his lack of due diligence in preparing for the board.  His lack of due diligence does not establish an error by the Army.  Accordingly, he is not entitled to this portion of the requested relief.

13.  With respect to his issues associated with the Blue to Green transfer/enlistment bonus, the evidence of record does not show he was entitled to receive such a bonus.  In fact, this particular bonus was designed to facilitate the transfer of qualified Air Force and Navy personnel to active duty in the Army; therefore, since he transferred from the USNR to the USAR, he would not have qualified for this bonus.  Barring evidence to the contrary, there is an insufficient basis to grant this portion of the requested relief.

14.  With respect to his issues associated with the FLPB, his records are void of evidence showing he was tested and determined to be proficient in the Yoruba language as recorded on a DA Form 330 or that shows he submitted an application for an FLPB and was denied payment of the FLPB.  Therefore, there is no basis to grant his request for a waiver, exception to policy, or reconsideration for the window of eligibility and eligibility requirements pertaining to annual retesting, recertification, or eligibility for an FLPB.

15.  Neither the evidence of record nor any evidence he submitted shows he was eligible for, requested, and was denied payment for back pay and allowances associated with an error in his service calculation; unpaid travel claims for annual training he performed during the period 18-21 August 2011 in Atlanta, GA; or six 4-hour battle assemblies.  Absent evidence that shows he was eligible for, requested, and was denied payment for these monies by either his servicing Finance and Accounting Office (FAO) or the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to grant this portion of the requested relief.

16.  The applicant requests assistance getting his military pay records from DFAS to be used to find and regain his missing retirement points, receive credit for extra qualifying years, and update his total number of qualifying years of military service.  The applicant should contact either DFAS for the resolution of pay issues or HRC for the resolution of retirement point and strength accounting issues.  As this request does not fall within the purview of this Board, there is an insufficient basis to grant this portion of the requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

__X____  ___X____  ___X____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

	a.  voiding his non-selection for promotion by the FY10 RC MAJ, APL, Promotion Selection Board;

	b.  submitting his records to a duly-constituted SSB for promotion consideration to MAJ based on the FY12-year criteria and:

		(1) if he is selected for promotion, correcting his records to show he met all the eligibility criteria for promotion (e.g., assignment to a MAJ's position or being in an active status) effective the date of release of the applicable promotion selection board, promoting him to MAJ with the appropriate DOR, and paying him any associated back pay and allowances due as a result of these corrections; and

		(2)  if selected for promotion and the applicant meets all prerequisites for promotion, his records should be further corrected by:

			(a)  showing the March 2012 discharge from the U.S. Army Reserve is void and of no force or effect,

			(b)  reinstating him in the USAR effective the date of his discharge and crediting him with qualifying service for Reserve retirement for his respective retirement years from the date of his now-voided discharge to the date of his return to the active Reserve;

			(c)  placing an appropriate statement in his records explaining the gap in his OER's from the date of his now-voided discharge to the date of his return to an active Reserve status was caused due to no fault of the applicant and ensuring he is not prejudiced in the consideration of any future personnel actions; and

		(3)  if he is not selected by the duly-constituted SSB, so notifying him.

2.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to:

* granting his request for promotion to MAJ
* granting his request for a MILED waiver for promotion for MAJ
* granting any of his requests pertaining to a Blue-to-Green transfer/enlistment bonus
* granting any of his requests pertaining to an FLPB
* granting his request for payment of unpaid monies, including back pay for possible errors in his service calculation, or unpaid travel claims or unpaid battle assemblies
* granting his request for assistance with getting his military pay records from DFAS




      _______ _ 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)                                         AR20090007349



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130011893



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1