MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            11 January 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000045274

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Ms. Ann M. Campbell		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 provided full separation pay.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he would like the benefits associated with his status as a Gulf War veteran as a matter of equity and justice and he specifically requests that his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) home loan benefit be restored.  He claims that he had to separate because of the military downsizing effort and he did not receive benefits he earned because he was improperly advised by retention officials to extend rather than reenlist while he was assigned in Germany.  In support of his application he encloses a letter to his Congressman and two sets of orders he received at his expiration of term of service (ETS).  

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

On 14 September 1989, he enlisted in the Regular Army for six years, which established his original ETS as 13 September 1995.  He was trained in and held military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic) and attained the rank of specialist/E-4 (SPC/E-4).

A Department of Defense (DD) Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) on file confirms that the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) on 27 April 1996, under the provisions of chapter 4, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of completion of required active service, after completing 6 years and 7 months of active military service.

This document also shows that during his tenure on active duty the applicant served in Southwest Asia and participated in Operation Desert Shield/Storm for just over six months, between 24 October 1990 and 27 April 1991.  It also verifies that his service extension was accomplished at the request of and for the convenience of the government and that he completed his first full term of service.  

The record is void of any voluntary extension documents or any other evidence that suggests that the applicant ever inquired about, received advice on, or attempted to submit a voluntary request for reenlistment.  Likewise the applicant provided no independent evidence that confirms either the basis for the extension to his initial enlistment or in regard to any efforts he may have made to reenlist.  He further provides no independent evidence regarding any specific advice he received from retention officials in Germany. 

Department of the Army Circular 635-92-1 (Separation Pay), in effect at the time, outlined eligibility criteria and defined categories of members eligible for full and half separation pay; in addition, to those not eligible for separation pay based on their specific status and type of separation.  Paragraph 2-4 specifically provided categories of soldiers separated under certain circumstances who were ineligible for separation pay.  Sub-paragraph (b) states, in pertinent part, that soldiers separated from active duty during an initial term of service were ineligible for separation pay, this included soldiers who wished to continue their service but were denied reenlistment.

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 Board noted the applicant’s contention that he was unjustly denied separation pay as a result of bad advice he received from Army retention officials in Germany.  However, after a careful examination of the evidence of record and the independent evidence submitted by the applicant, the Board finds no evidentiary basis to support this claim.

2.  By regulation, members on their initial enlistment were not eligible to receive separation pay and this included those members who wished to continue their service but were denied reenlistment.  Given the lack of any evidence showing that the applicant was ever denied the opportunity to reenlist while he was eligible, the Board finds that the requested relief is not warranted.

3.  The record is void of documents pertaining to the applicant’s extension or evidence that suggests he extended his enlistment on the advice of retention officials after considering a reenlistment option.  In the opinion of the Board, it is likely that he voluntarily chose the extension option; a presumption supported by the fact that retention officials in Germany had nothing to gain by advising him to extend rather than to reenlist.  

4.  The successful accomplishment of the Army retention mission is based on the number of soldiers who reenlist as opposed to those who extend.  Thus, lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board finds no reason to conclude that the applicant’s decision to extend rather than reenlist was based on poor advice he received from retention personnel in Germany.  

5.  Resolution of the applicant’s contention that he would like his VA home loan benefit restored is not within the purview of this Board.  The specific reason he lost his VA home loan benefit is not a military record correction matter.  The proper venue to pursue this specific claim is through the VA.

6.  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 this requirement.

7.  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

__dph___  ___ew __  __amc___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000045274	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/01/11	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1996/04/27	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C4	
DISCHARGE REASON	ETS	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  291	128.0800	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.