BOARD DATE:	  24 September 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150001337 


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, in effect, reversal of his selection for non-retention by the Oregon Army National Guard (ORARNG) Calendar Year (CY) 2013 Enlisted Active Service Management Board (ASMB) and that his retirement date be adjusted to February 2016.

2.  The applicant states he is a student at the Sergeant Major (SGM) Academy scheduled to graduate Phase 1 in August 2014.  He had 1 year to complete Phase II in August 2015.  He will have a 6 month military service obligation after graduation.

3.  The applicant provides:

* a memorandum, dated 5 January 2013, from Joint Force Headquarters (JFH), ORARNG, subject:  Soldier Notification of ASMB Review
* a memorandum, dated 3 June 2013, from JFH, ORARNG signed by the Adjutant General (TAG)
* a memorandum, dated 11 July 2013, from JFH, ORARNG signed by the State Command Sergeant Major (CSM)
* two memoranda, dated 1 February 2005 and 30 June 2013, subject:  Command Policy Memorandum Number 127 (Joint) - Maximum Tenure Policy for ORARNG Full-Time Personnel
* three DA Forms 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER))


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  He enlisted in the ORARNG on 16 October 1992.  He entered his last period of active service on 29 January 2003.  He had previously served on active duty for 9 years and 12 days.  On 14 April 2004, he was ordered to full-time National Guard duty in an Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) status effective 18 May 2004.  This was a consecutive AGR tour renewal.

2.  On 1 June 2007, he was notified that, having completed the required years of service, he was eligible for retired pay upon application at age 60.

3.  On 1 November 2008, he was promoted to master sergeant.  On 1 November 2010, he received a lateral appointment to first sergeant (1SG).  He was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11Z (Infantry Senior Sergeant).

4.  On 5 January 2013, he signed his notification of ASMB review.  He elected to have his records appear before the ASMB.  He understood that if he was not selected for release from the AGR program, he would continue to serve until he reached his retention control point, was released by a subsequent board, or requested to retire.  He also understood that if he was selected for release from the AGR Program, he would be released no earlier than 9 months and no later than 12 months after the results were approved or upon attainment of 20 years of active service, whichever was later.

5.  On 13 March 2013, the ORARNG notified the National Guard Bureau (NGB) of their intent to conduct a CY 2013 Enlisted ASMB for their enlisted AGR population.  TAG established the selection objectives for the CY 2013 Enlisted ASMB by MOS, electing to release three 11Zs from the AGR program.  Only four 11Zs were considered by the board and three were selected for release from the AGR program.  

6.  On 9-10 April 2013, the ORARNG conducted the Enlisted ASMB.  The Director, NGB concurred with the ORARNG Enlisted ASMB results on 22 April 2013 and TAG approved those results on 23 April 2013.

7.  On 29 May 2013, the applicant was notified of his selection for non-retention in the AGR program.  He was notified of the options available to Soldiers selected for non-retention in the AGR program, which were:

* revert to a traditional drilling status
* apply for voluntary retirement
* transfer to the USAR (troop program unit, individual mobilization asset, individual reserve)
8.  He elected to retire and submitted his application for retirement with an effective date of 1 July 2103.

9.  On 30 April 2014, he was retired and placed on the Retired List the following day.  He had completed 20 years, 3 months, and 14 days of active service.

10.  A memorandum, dated 12 December 2012, from NGB, subject:  ARNG Enlisted AGR ASMB Guidance for CY 2013-2015 (ARNG-HRH Policy Memorandum Number 12-084) prescribes policies and procedures for establishing and conducting the Enlisted ASMB for Soldiers who have 18 years or more of active service and who fall within the zone of consideration.  The Enlisted ASMB is based on the needs of the Army and on the Soldier's service in the AGR program.

	a.  Paragraph 8b states the selection objectives for the Enlisted ASMB will be developed by grade, MOS, or a combination of these criteria.  Selection objectives that so narrow the board population that individual Soldiers are targeted must be modified to expand the considered population.

	b.  Paragraph 8g states all nominative CSMs serving in the AGR Program are exempt from the ASMB process.

	c.  If selected for release, a Soldier will be released no earlier than 9 months and no later than 12 months after the results of the ASMB was approved or upon attainment of 20 years of active service, whichever is later.

11.  The applicant provided a memorandum, dated 3 June 2013, from JFH, ORARNG, Office of TAG, signed by TAG.  TAG stated:

	a.  He approved the results of the ASMB on 23 April 2013.  The board selected 18 NCOs for separation from the ORARNG.  The applicant was among those selected.

	b.  It had been brought to his attention that the applicant was selected under the direction of a previous State CSM for enrollment in the SGM Academy.  The applicant had been enrolled in the first phase of the SGM Academy and remained in good standing in the class.  His job performance was outstanding.

	c.  Had he been informed of the applicant's selection and of his success to date in the SGM course he would have decided that he and others in a similar situation be exempt from the ASMB or provided instruction to the board specifying this exemption.  He believed it was patently unfair and inequitable to have held out to an individual of this caliber that he should pursue a distance learning credential in the SGM Academy and half way through inform him that he must separate and retire.

	d.  He strongly believed it was appropriate for the applicant to request the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) overturn the ASMB selection and reinstate his status in the ORARNG.

12.  The applicant provided a memorandum, dated 11 July 2013, from the State CSM, JFH, ORARNG.  The State CSM stated:

	a.  The results of the ASMB were approved by Major General R, TAG-Oregon on 23 April 2013.  The applicant was among 18 NCOs selected for separation from the ORARNG.

	b.  The applicant was previously selected for enrollment in the SGM Academy by the former State CSM.  The applicant had been enrolled in the first phase of the SGM Academy and remained in good standing in the class.  His job performance was outstanding.

	c.  The ASMB occurred during the transition of State CSMs.  Because of this there was very little time for an exchange of information.  In the process of transitioning it was missed that the applicant should be exempt from the upcoming ASMB as he was selected above his peers to attend the SGM Academy due to his outstanding leadership and expertise.

	d.  He firmly believed that it was appropriate for the applicant to request the ABCMR overturn the ASMB selection and reinstate his status in the ORARNG.

13.  In the processing of this case an advisory opinion, dated 8 May 2015, was received from NGB.

	a.  NGB recommended disapproval of the applicant's request.

	b.   TAG established the selection objectives for the CY 2013 Enlisted ASMB by MOS, electing to release three 11Zs from the AGR program.  Only four 11Zs were considered by the board and three were selected for release from the AGR program.  Any exemption granted the applicant would require exempting the entire 11Z population from board consideration.

	c.  The applicant's contention of a service obligation that should have exempted him from the board is without merit.  ARNG-HRH Policy Memorandum Number 12-084 only exempted Soldiers conditionally promoted to SGM from board consideration.  He had the option to revert to a traditional drilling status to complete the SGM Course.

14.  The applicant provided a response to the above advisory opinion.

	a.  He stated all Soldiers had to sign the ASMB memorandum regardless of their status, as a failure to sign would result in an automatic non-retain.

	b.  Prior to signing his application for retirement, he was advised by JAG (Judge Advocate General) as well as TAG to do so and file an appeal with the ABCMR.

	c.  He provided two quotes from TAG's memorandum, dated 3 June 2013.  He stated TAG realized human error and a mistake in the process and supports and requests an adjustment of his retirement date.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  TAG established the selection objectives for the CY 2013 Enlisted ASMB by MOS, electing to release three 11Zs from the AGR program.  Only four 11Zs were considered by the board and three were selected for release from the AGR program.  

2.  TAG now states had he known the applicant was enrolled in the SGM Academy he would have exempted him from the ASMB.  However, by doing so only three 11Zs would have been considered by the ASMB for three selections for release from the AGR program.  This would have resulted in targeting those individuals and is prohibited by ARNG-HRH Policy Memorandum Number 
12-084, dated 12 December 2012.  Any exemption granted the applicant would require exempting the entire 11Z population from ASMB consideration.

3.  ARNG-HRH Policy Memorandum Number 12-084, dated 12 December 2012, only exempted Soldiers conditionally promoted to SGM from ASMB consideration.  There is no evidence the applicant met this criteria.

4.  He retired 12 months after the date of approval of the CY 2013 Enlisted ASMB.  

5.  There is no basis for granting relief in this case.




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)                                         AR20150001337



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150001337



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1