MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:           

	BOARD DATE:           15 February 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999027302

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy 		Member	
	Mr. Roger Able		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, the applicant requests that his discharge from the Army National Guard be revoked, that he be reinstated in the Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement), and that he receive service credit from the date of his discharge until the date of reinstatement.  The applicant is supported in his request by the chief of staff of the 300th Military Police Command.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his military personnel records were lost when he transferred from the 75th Maneuver Area Command (MAC) to the Oregon Army National Guard (ORARNG).  Furthermore, his mandatory removal date (MRD) was incorrect when the ORARNG initiated discharge action.  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant was born on 26 June 1941.  

The applicant served on active duty in the Navy from 28 August 1959 to            14 August 1963 and was released from active duty at San Diego in the pay grade of E-4. 

The applicant was appointed a Captain in the Army Reserve on                         23 November 1981.  He was 40 years old.  He was promoted to Major effective   9 October 1989.

A copy of the applicant’s personnel qualification record, dated 11 April 1991 shows that his mandatory removal date is 25 July 1994, based on a maximum length of service.

On 25 September 1991, the applicant then assigned to the 75th MAC was reassigned to the Army Reserve at St. Louis effective 1 June 1991. 
He was appointed a Major in the Oregon Army National Guard on                      16 November 1991.

The applicant was promoted to lieutenant colonel in the National Guard on         19 January 1994.

The applicant was discharged from the Army National Guard on 25 July 1994 per Oregon National Guard order 193-3, dated 4 October 1994.  That order states that upon termination of his federal recognition he does not become a member of the Army Reserve.  NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows that the applicant was discharged from the Army National Guard of Oregon and as a Reserve of the Army on 25 July 1994.  

A 2 December 1994 Army National Guard retirement points statement shows that the applicant has 11 years, 7 months, and 20 days of qualifying service for retired pay at age 60.  However, a 30 March 1991 Army Reserve Personnel Center chronological statement of retirement points credits him with four years of qualifying service not indicated on the National Guard statement, which would give him 15 years, 7 months, and 20 days of qualifying service.

Army Regulation 135-175 prescribes the policies, criteria, and procedures governing the separation of Reserve officers of the Army.  That regulation applies to all officers of the Army National Guard of the United States and the United States Army Reserve.  Paragraph 1-7 states in effect that the effective date of separation will be at 2400 hours of the date of notice of discharge unless discharged in grade of lieutenant colonel or below because the maximum years of service authorized in Army Regulation 140-10 have been completed.  The effective date of discharge will be 30 days after completion of the maximum service authorized. 

Paragraph 1-13 states in pertinent part that 10 USC section 3352(b) provides that an officer of the Army National Guard of the United States, on withdrawal of Federal recognition, becomes a member of the Army Reserve unless he is discharged from his appointment as a Reserve of the Army.

Army Regulation 140-10, then in effect, provides for the mandatory removal of soldiers from an active status.  Paragraph 7-2 provides for removal for length of service and states in pertinent part that lieutenant colonels will be removed          30 days after their 53d birthday if age 25 or older at initial appointment.  Soldiers removed from an active status will be discharged or transferred to the Retired Reserve.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant was removed for length of service 30 days after his 53d birthday on 25 July 1994 in accordance with the provisions of the applicable regulations in effect.  His mandatory removal date was correctly computed. 
Consequently, there is no reason to reinstate him in the Army Reserve.

2.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.   

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___ra___  ___fe____   ___kak__  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999027302	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000215	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 192	110.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.