MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:           19 October 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000045348

	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. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser 		Member	
	Ms. Tracey L. Pinson  		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 reinstatement in the New Mexico Army National Guard, in both his military position and his civilian technician position, with the restoration of all rights, privileges, and property.   

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant deferred to his attorney; however, he signed the statement outlining his case to this Board.  

In effect, the applicant states that certain documents were not reviewed by the selective retention board (SRB), causing him to be not selected for retention, resulting in his separation from the Army National Guard and the loss of his civilian technician job.  He states that he did not have the opportunity to re-review his retention file, nor was he able to review the federal recognition packet prior to the convening of the federal recognition board.

He states, in effect, that a copy of a 15 July 1998 corrective action plan that should have been in his retention packet was not there.  He implies that documentation concerning his predetermination packet (approval of reclassification from MOS (military occupational specialty) 140B to 915A) was not in his retention packet; that correspondence showing acceptance for enrollment in 915E warrant officer advance course was not in his retention packet; that he had no opportunity to review his packet as indicated by the date on the selective retention board check list; and that the federal recognition board reviewed an outdated photograph, resulting in the denial of federal recognition in MOS 915A. 

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

The applicant submits the front side of an officer evaluation report ending on       2 May 1998.  It shows that he received all 1’s in the 14 attributes of Part IV – Performance Evaluation – Professionalism portion of that report.  

He submits a copy of an 11 August 1998 training reservation showing his acceptance to a 915E course. 

On 16 December 1998 The Adjutant General of New Mexico determined that the applicant was technically qualified to be reclassified from MOS 140B to 915A, unit maintenance technician (light), and awarded him constructive credit for the warrant officer basic course for MOS 915A.  It authorized the applicant to enroll in the warrant officer advanced course for MOS 915E, and stated that the applicant should prepare his packet for federal recognition board action for MOS redesignation.

On 10 January 1999 the applicant was notified that he would be considered for retention by a SRB that would convene on 18-20 May 1999.  That notification provided a checklist to be returned not later than 16 April 1999.

The applicant was enrolled in the warrant officer advance support maintenance course (MOS 915E), for the cycle beginning on 12 February 1999.

A 1 March 1999 NGB Form 89 (Proceedings of a Federal Recognition Examining Board) shows that the applicant was considered for federal recognition as a Chief Warrant Officer Two in MOS 915A.  That board found that the applicant’s military photo revealed a uniform significantly not in compliance with Army Regulation 670-1, and stated that the applicant’s basic obligation as a soldier and an officer had to be met before he could be federally recognized in any additional specialty. In effect, the board denied federal recognition in MOS 915A.

The applicant submits a SRB checklist which he signed on 9 April 1999.
The applicant submits a copy of a 12 April 1999 letter to the President of the SRB, addressing the matter of an OER ending in September 1997, his redesignation in MOS 915A, his completion of the action officer development course, and his enrollment in the warrant officer advance course, MOS 915E.

A certificate from the Army Training Support Center at Fort Eustis, Virginia, shows that the applicant completed an action officer development course on      19 April 1999. 

On 25 June 1999, The Adjutant General, State of New Mexico, informed the applicant that he failed to be selected for retention in the Army National Guard and would be separated from that organization on 24 August 1999. 

On 23 July 1999 the applicant was notified that his employment as a National Guard technician would be terminated on 27 August 1999, because of his pending separation from the Army National Guard.

In a 4 August 1999 letter to a member of congress the applicant stated that certain documents were not included in his retention packet.

The applicant was discharged from the Army National Guard on 24 August 1999 and transferred to the Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) at St. Louis.

National Guard Regulation 635-102 provides guidance and procedures for conducting the officer selective retention board.  It states that selection boards will be convened in each state annually to consider officers and warrant officers for selective retention beyond 20 years of qualifying service for retired pay.  

Paragraph 5 of that regulation states in pertinent part, that the state adjutants general are responsible for maintaining necessary records to permit a determination of each officer’s eligibility for consideration for retention, announcing the frequency of subsequent considerations, notifying officers to be considered of the purpose, time and place of the board, referring personnel records to the selection board, and ensuring that each record has a selective retention board checklist attached (the officer personnel management system manager is responsible for preparing and/or verifying the information contained thereon).  That paragraph states that the adjutants general may approve or disapprove the board report, remove an officer’s name from the nonselect list, or modify the select list.  They may disapprove the report in its entirety and require the board to convene and reconsider all cases if the board report contains substantial administrative errors or procedural deficiencies.  They will establish controls to ensure that officer evaluation reports and other documents that have direct bearing on the retention value of an officer are submitted on time. 

Paragraph 8 states in pertinent part that individuals being considered for selective retention may write letters to the selection board inviting attention to any matter of record concerning themselves that they feel important in the review of their records.

Selection boards will make an evaluation of the future benefits that can be expected to accrue to the Army National Guard from the continued service of each individual considered, to include the potential for replacing staff officers or specialists in the case of warrant officers, the adequacy of civilian or military education for performance of duties associated with higher level command and staff assignments, demonstrated performance as attested by evaluation reports, academic reports, and results of inspections and evaluations, and medical condition and physical fitness, so that no significant assignment limitations are evidenced.

When federal recognition is withdrawn from officers under the provisions of the regulation, they become members of the Army Reserve and will be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Commander of the Army Reserve Personnel Command unless they elect to be assigned 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 has not provided any evidence to show that pertinent documents were missing from his record when considered by the New Mexico Army National Guard SRB.  A checklist, which he signed on 9 April 1999, indicates he was aware of those documents that he had to review (officer evaluation reports, report of medical examination, photograph, etc.) prior to submission to the board.  In addition, on 12 April 1999, he corresponded with the board, pointing out a problem with an evaluation report, indicating that he had been redesignated in MOS 915A and was awaiting federal recognition in that MOS, and stating that he had completed an action officer development course, and was enrolled in a warrant officer advance course, MOS 915E.   
2.  Consequently, and despite the applicant’s protestations to the contrary, there is no evidence of error.  Absent evidence to the contrary, his nonselection for retention is considered to have been proper.  Therefore, there is no cause to reinstate him in the Army National Guard. 

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

4.  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 that requirement.

5.  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

___cjp___  ___ewl__  ___tlp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000045348	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001019	
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	125.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.