BOARD DATE: 19 February 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130015110
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 revocation of his retirement orders or to be shown to have retired in pay grade O-5.
2. The applicant states in effect that he was requesting information on retirement, not actually requesting to retire when the Assignments Officer at the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) erroneously forwarded his request to the Retirements Branch, who quickly cut his retirement order. Upon receipt of the order, he immediately contacted HRC asking information on how to get the orders revoked. He did sign a retirement request memo. The intent was to elicit feedback/counseling from his chain-of-command on his competitiveness for future opportunities and he was hoping to receive their help reassigning him to another position or unit.
3. The applicant provides copies of his retirement orders, a request for retirement, a leave request, request for revocation of his retirement orders, and 30 pages of e-mails.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant, with prior enlisted service, was commissioned a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) first lieutenant in the Military Intelligence branch on 5 September 1992.
2. He was ordered to active duty in an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) status on 10 January 1998.
3. The applicant qualified for non-regular retirement with receipt of his Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (Twenty Year Letter) on 27 July 2006.
4. The applicant was ordered to active Federal service as a major in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom with service in Iraq from 17 November 2008 through 19 September 2009. Upon completion of his deployment he returned to his AGR status and position.
5. He was promoted to lieutenant colonel (LTC) effective 1 March 2012.
6. In a memorandum, dated 27 January 2013 (and reportedly submitted on 14 February 2013) the applicant requested release from active duty with placement on the retired list effective 31 December 2013 in the rank of major. He included the statement that he was familiar with Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 6-22 that states if his application was accepted it may not be withdrawn except for extreme compassionate reasons or for the definitely established convenience of the Government.
7. HRC Orders P-02-390040, dated 27 February 2013, directed that the applicant be retired in the grade of major effective 31 December 2013.
8. On 26 June 2013, a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) was submitted by the applicant's command requesting revocation of his retirement orders. It was stated the applicant had requested retirement without garnering the required guidance/counseling by anyone in his chain-of-command and that he desired to continue as an AGR officer. The line recommending his retirement be revoked is lined through.
9. The request for revocation was denied, based on the regulation stating once retirement has been approved it would only be withdrawn for extreme compassionate reasons or for the good of the service.
10. The applicant was released from active duty on 31 December 2013 in the rank of major.
11. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was received from the HRC, Chief, Officer Retention and Transition Branch. It stated the applicant submitted a voluntary retirement request that was properly processed and accepted. His request to revoke the retirement orders was properly processed and denied.
12. A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant. There is no indication the applicant offered any addition statements or arguments.
13. Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), chapter 10, states a commissioned officer must serve on active duty 3 years in grade to retire in rank above major and below lieutenant general. However, the Secretary of Defense has authorized the Secretary of the Army to waive this requirement in individual cases involving extreme hardship or exceptional or unusual circumstances.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. It is implicit in the military personnel system that officers have a responsibility for his own careers. The general requirements and workings of the system are widely known and specific details such retirement requirements and procedures are widely published in official and quasi-official publications and official communications.
2. Whether or not the applicant sought career counseling with his chain of command prior to submitting the official documents requesting retirement is not relevant. He submitted an official request for retirement that was accepted.
3. Once the documents were processed and his request for retirement accepted, only by showing extreme hardship or exceptional or unusual circumstances can the request be withdrawn.
4. The applicant has failed to provide convincing evidence that he was improperly retired and he did not met the 3-year service-on-active-duty-in-grade requirement to retire in the higher rank.
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) AR20130015110
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130015110
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018669
During the original review of this case it was determined the applicant voluntarily requested and was granted retirement in the rank of major prior to completing the 3 years of service as an LTC as required by law to retire in that grade. Further, the evidence fails to support a conclusion the family considerations that resulted in him declining his overseas assignment and requesting retirement rose to the level of extreme hardship, or exceptional or unusual circumstances, at the time he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019413
The applicant provides: * a memorandum, dated 8 July 2010, from HRC, subject: Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (20-year Letter) * emails, dated 5-20 May 2011, concerning his assignment to the 224th MP Company, Phoenix, AZ * a memorandum for record (MFR), dated 15 October 2011, from Division West, Building, McGregor Range, Fort Bliss, TX * two DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), dated 10 November 2011 * a DA Form 4651 (Request for Reserve Component Assignment...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019238
On 4 June 2012, the Chief, Enlisted Promotions, Promotions Branch, HRC, advised the applicant of the administrative removal of his name from the Fiscal Year 2011 SFC Promotion List due to his declination of promotion in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-19, paragraph 4-15a(2)(i). The evidence of record shows he was selected for promotion to SFC with an effective date and date of rank of 1 December 2011 and incurred a two-year service remaining requirement. On 1 May 2012, he declined...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076779C070215
During the obligated period of service, the soldier will not apply for voluntary nondisability retirement unless the soldier is (a) eligible for retirement by completion 30 years or more active Federal service and (b) already eligible through prior service for a higher grade at retirement and (c) over 58 years of age. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150006171
* There is no appeal process, waivers, or redress for AGR officers selected for REFRAD who are eligible for consideration by the REFRAD board; however, officers selected by the board and were later found to have been ineligible for consideration may have their REFRAD selection nullified with approval of CAR of his representative 8. He provides a FAQs printout, updated on 15 April 2014 that answers questions related to: * Officer population to be considered by the REFRAD board * Selection...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083475C070212
The applicant was scheduled to attend ANCOC class number 502 PH1 with a reporting date of 11 February 2001. Both of these members of the applicant’s NCO support chain recommend approval of the applicant’s request for reinstatement of his promotion and to the ANCOC. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was granted a compassionate deferment from attending his 11 February 2001 ANCOC class; by reinstating his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012725
On 8 January 2013, by memorandum, an official at HRC Promotions Branch notified the applicant that as a result of his failure to meet the NCOES requirements of Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), paragraph 1-27b(2), his promotion orders to the rank/grade of SGM/E-9 have been revoked, effective 7 February 2012 and with a date of rank of 1 January 2004. b. Paragraph 1-27 (NCOES requirements for promotion and conditional promotions), a Soldier must be a USASMC...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019675
He goes on to state the GOMOR in question was in his OMPF when the awards board approved the LOM. While the applicant would have the Board to believe the awards board was in error to revoke his LOM because he had his GOMOR transferred to the restricted fiche before the awards board became aware of its existence, his contention lacks merit. The Commander, HRC approved the award of the LOM and he revoked it through the awards branch in accordance with applicable regulations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011217
This request was denied by HRC on 8 June 2010. e. Paragraph 2e states after a thorough review of the applicant's medical records, temporary physical profile, and discussion with all his medical providers, the Office of the Surgeon General (OTSG) rendered a decision on 20 July 2010 that there were no limitations to the officer continuing service. HRC has gone above and beyond to do what was best and right for the applicant and the Army. His approved retirement date was only on record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058405C070421
On 3 December 1998, the soldier submitted a DA Form 4187 requesting retirement on 1 September 1999, which reflects that he intended to retire with 22 years of AFS. The opinion further states that the applicant was aware for over 4 months before retirement that he would not have 22 years of AFS at his requested retirement date, and while soldiers are authorized to request change or withdrawal of an approved retirement, there is no evidence that the applicant requested to change or withdraw...