MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            3 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036751

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Member	
	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		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 granted a subsequent Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) tour retroactive to 4 March 1997 with entitlement to all back pay and allowances and that he be granted Special Duty Assignment Pay (SDAP) to the date of his separation. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, and very briefly, that a second initial tour continuation board was convened after he had received follow-on tour renewal orders, that the Army National Guard failed to issue subsequent tour renewal orders for the authorized period of duty, that the regulation cited in the memorandum issued on 4 December 1996 applies to officer continuation boards and refers enlisted personnel to qualitative retention procedures, and that his SDAP should be continued through separation.  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records, although incomplete, show:

On 10 February 1995, while serving in the pay grade of E-6 in the Oklahoma Army National Guard (OKARNG) in the AGR program, the applicant received a notification from the OKARNG that he would be considered for continuation in the AGR Program by a state level tour continuation board during March 1995 and provided him guidance on procedures to be followed regarding his consideration. 

Although the outcome of that Board is not present in the available records, it is reasonable to presume that he was retained in the AGR Program because on 21 May 1996 he again received notification that he was being considered for continuation in the AGR Program in July 1996.

Meanwhile, on 6 August 1996, orders were published ordering the applicant to active duty in the AGR program for the period of 10 August to 30 November 1996.  On 6 November 1996 orders were published renewing his tour for the period of 1 December 1996 to 28 February 1997.  

On 4 December 1996 the applicant received a memorandum from the OKARNG notifying him that he was being involuntarily terminated from the AGR Program effective 3 March 1997 because a duly established board had determined that he should not be continued in the AGR Program.  The memorandum cited, as the basis for his termination, that the board had determined that his demonstrated performance during his initial tour was substandard, that the documents provided by the applicant reflected an unwillingness to get along and work with peers and the chain of command and his demonstrated need for close supervision in a position which required independent work habits.  Accordingly, orders were published which extended his AGR tour to 3 March 1997 (from 28 February 1997).

On 5 December 1996, orders were published that terminated his SDAP as a recruiter due to his being transferred from recruiter duties to that of an administrative noncommissioned officer (NCO).

On 3 March 1997 he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) due to completion of required service and was transferred back to his OKARNG unit.  He had served 3 years, 6 months, and 24 days of total active service during his most recent AGR tour.

At the time of his application to the Board, the applicant was serving in the pay grade of E-8 in the United States Army Reserve (USAR).

Army Regulation (AR) 135-18 establishes policy and procedures for obtaining, administering, and separating personnel serving as members of the AGR Program.  It states, in pertinent part, that enlisted soldiers will be qualitatively considered for retention in the AGR Program.  Enlisted soldiers selected for removal from AGR status by a duly constituted board are subject to voluntary or involuntary separation from AGR status.

National Guard Regulation (NGR) and AR 601-1 provides the policies and procedures governing the entitlement to SDAP.  It states, in pertinent part, that recruiters are not entitled to SDAP when they are removed from their recruiting duties.  When an SDAP recipient is separated from active duty and does not enter or reenter an AGR tour then SDAP status is withdrawn on the separation date and SDAP entitlement continues through separation date.

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.  Although the applicant has not articulated why he believes he was improperly or unjustly considered for qualitative retention, the fact remains that retention boards are convened by the National Guard as a means of retaining the best assets in the AGR Program.  While the applicant may not agree with the outcome of the board that determined that he should be removed from the AGR Program, he has failed to show that he was improperly considered by such a board or that the board was improperly constituted or convened.

3.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contention that he should have received SDAP and finds it to be without merit.  The applicant was not performing the duties required in order to receive SDAP; therefore, it appears that his entitlement was properly terminated.

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

__esc___  ___js  ___  ___cmf__  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036751	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/08/03	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  192	110.0300/REINSTATEMENT AGR	
2.  297	128.1400/SDAP	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.