MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           1 March 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028900

	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.

	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Member	
	Mr. John Saputo		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, that he be reinstated in the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) and that his mandatory removal date (MRD) be extended.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he does not believe he received a fair hearing in his request for extension of his MRD.  He does not believe there was a podiatrist on his hearing board and in fact he has his doubts that there was even a formal board that reviewed his request for extension.

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

He was born on 25 September 1945.  He was appointed a commissioned officer in the USAR on 15 May 1970 and served as a 67G, podiatrist, Medical Service Corps (MS).  He was promoted to lieutenant colonel on 4 February 1989.

The applicant was apparently notified in late 1997/early 1998 that he was coming up to his MRD.  He was given the options of being considered for extension beyond his MRD; to be transferred to the Retired Reserves if eligible; or to be discharged at the time of his MRD.  On 6 February 1998, he elected to be considered for extension.  His chain of command recommended his retention as “absolutely in the best interest of this command and the United States Army Reserve.”

The board convened on 12 February 1998.  The applicant was not recommended for retention because his area of concentration was not critical.  He was assigned to the Retired Reserves on 14 June 1998.  

On 23 February 2000, the Office of The Surgeon General confirmed that specialty 67G is currently overstrength (by 17) in the USAR.

Army Regulation 140-10 prescribes policies and procedures to assign, remove, or transfer USAR soldiers.  In pertinent part, it states that lieutenant colonels will be removed from active status for length of service when they complete 28 years of commissioned service if under age 25 at initial appointment.

Title 10, U. S. Code, section 14703, provides that the Secretary of the Army may, with the officer’s consent, retain in an active status until a specified age any reserve officer assigned to the Medical Services Corps. 

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.  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.

2.  The Board does not doubt the applicant’s contention that he was fully qualified as a 67G and notes the highly favorable recommendation his chain of command gave him in support of his request for extension of his MRD.  However, the evidence shows that the USAR was and still is overstrength in 67Gs.  The MRD board that convened on 12 February 1998 took this overstrength condition into consideration and determined he was not in a critical area of concentration and the Board concludes it made the proper decision when it recommended his MRD not be extended.  Although the Board has not confirmed whether or not a podiatrist was a member of the MRD board, it concludes such a concern is immaterial given the overstrength, non-criticality of his area of concentration.

3.  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

__gdp___  __mmd___  __js____  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028900	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000301	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	136.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.