MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            13 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000045687

	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:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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, retroactive enrollment in and compensation from the Ready Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Program (RRMIIP).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she was recalled to active duty on 5 July 1997 and that she was not informed of the RRMIIP in any way and that she has done everything possible since she was made aware of the program to obtain coverage under the program.  However, despite her attempts she has been given the run-around and has been denied enrollment.  In support of her application she submits copies of all documents related to her service during the period in question and her attempts to obtain coverage under the RRMIIP.

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

She initially enlisted in the Regular Army at Fort Hamilton, New York in August 1979 and served until she was released from active duty in March 1981 due to a pregnancy discharge.  She had served 1 year, 6 months and 16 days of total active service and was transferred to the United States Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement).

She again enlisted on 26 April 1983 and served as a patient administration specialist until she was honorably discharged in the pay grade of E-6 on 1 January 1995 under the Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) Option of the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (VSIP).  She had served 13 years, 2 months, and 2 days of total active service and was authorized payment of $7,290.30 for a period of 26 years, provided she remained affiliated with the USAR.  She enlisted in the USAR the following day and was transferred to a USAR Troop Program Unit (TPU) in Georgia.

On 3 July 1997 orders were published which reassigned her from her unit in South Carolina to a Mobilization Support Detachment in Atlanta Georgia effective 6 July 1997.

The applicant underwent a medical/physical examination in conjunction with deployment on 8 July 1997 and indicated in her medical history that she had fallen off a bunk bed the previous day, was sent to the hospital, that she was feeling pain all over and in her neck, and that she had started to get migraines.  Otherwise, she was in good health.  The applicant was deemed fit for deployment. 

On 10 July 1997 orders were published which ordered her to active duty in support of Operation Joint Guard and reassigned her to Europe (Germany).

On 17 December 1997, she underwent a medical examination and indicated in her medical history a significant number of changes from her previous medical history that she completed in July 1997, that existed prior to July 1997.  The applicant was deemed fit for duty pending further medical evaluation.

On 13 November 1997, temporary duty (TDY) orders were published which authorized the applicant to travel from Stuttgart, Germany to Tuzla, Bosnia for a period of 90 days.

Orders were published on 23 February 1998 directing the applicant’s redeployment to Fort Benning, Georgia effective 27 March 1998. 

On 27 March 1998 the Medical Department Activity (MEDDAC) Patient Administration Department of the Army Hospital at Fort Benning prepared a memorandum to the Adjutant General at Fort Benning indicating that the applicant had a medical condition that required follow-up medical care and would require her retention on active duty for treatment.

On 18 May 1998, the applicant filed a travel voucher indicating that she had traveled from Columbia, South Carolina to Fort Benning , Atlanta, Georgia, Frankfurt, Germany, Ramstein, Germany, Tuzla, Bosnia, Ramstein, Stuttgart, Babenhausen, Germany, and back to Fort Benning.  

The applicant submitted a request for RRMIIP enrollment to the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM) on 24 August 1998 contending that until a few days prior, she was unaware of the RRMIIP and that she desired the opportunity to participate in the program.  She also submitted a notarized affidavit in which she stated, in effect, that she was the only member of her unit mobilized, that she took a cut in pay from her civilian job, uprooted her kids to mobilize, and that she served in Bosnia from November 1997 to February 1998.  The ARPERCOM returned the applicant’s request to her without action with an explanation that the deadline for submitting an appeal under the RRMIIP was 30 June 1998. 

The applicant again submitted a request for enrollment in the RRMIIP to the ARPERSCOM on 15 September 1998 and also submitted an inquiry through her congressional representative.  In support of her application she submitted a memorandum from the commander of her original unit which indicates that no soldiers were briefed on the RRMIIP because the unit had no deployment mission and was being reorganized with another unit at the time that also had no deployment mission.  He further stated that it was an administrative oversight on the part of the unit that personnel were not briefed and confirmed that the applicant was reassigned without having received a briefing.

In response to the congressional inquiry, the ARPERSCOM opined that the applicant had missed the appeals deadline, that the ARPERSCOM had sent representatives to Germany, Hungary, and Bosnia in late February and early March 1998 to clarify the program.  It further opined that the trip was well publicized, that the briefings were attended by over 900 soldiers, and that it was extremely difficult to believe that the soldier was just now hearing of the program.

In October 1998 the applicant underwent a psychological evaluation due to complaints of memory loss that had grown progressively worse over the years.  The evaluation indicates that the applicant stated that she had attempted to take college courses and had failed all six of the courses she had taken, that she had been moved from one position to another over the past 6 years in the Army and that she had not performed well in most of the jobs.  She also stated that most of her difficulties arose immediately after Operation Desert Storm and have gotten worse and that she had received nonjudicial punishment for forging documents.  The psychiatrist indicated that the applicant was somewhat angry and demanding, that she was marginally cooperative with testing procedures, and recommended that she receive a full neuro-psychological evaluation within 1 year, with use of test instruments to aid in detection of malingered memory. 

In October 1999 a medical evaluation board (MEB) determined that the applicant did not meet the retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501 due to mood disorders and referred her for evaluation by a physical evaluation board (PEB). 

On 6 December 1999, a PEB determined that she was physically unfit for retention (40%) and directed that she be placed on the temporary disability retired list (TDRL) with reexamination in 2001. 

Accordingly, the applicant was placed on the TDRL effective 29 January 2000.  She had served 2 years, 6 months and 4 days of active service during her last period of active duty for a total of 15 years, 10 months, and 10 days of total active service.

The applicant again initiated a congressional inquiry on 17 February 2000 and the ARPERSCOM advised the congressional representative that her only option was to submit an application to this Board.

In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was provided by the ARPERSCOM RRMIIP Manager who opined, in effect, that the appeal deadline was established as 30 June 1998 because the services felt that soldiers had been offered a legitimate time period to appeal any reasons for non-enrollment.  The program and appeals process was briefed in 14 locations throughout Germany, Hungary, and Bosnia in February and March 1998 by ARPERSCOM personnel and information was available during soldier readiness processing at Fort Benning as well.  It further opined that it would be inequitable to those soldiers who submitted their appeals within the prescribed timeframe for the applicant to be granted enrollment after the fact given her lack of credible evidence to support her contention that she was not briefed before the appeals deadline ended.  The ARPERSCOM recommended that the request be denied and the opinion was provided to the applicant for comment. 

The applicant responded to the advisory opinion to the effect that she disagreed with the content of the advisory opinion and stated that while in Germany, she gave her paperwork to her supervisor to ensure that she was taken care of, that her paperwork was collected along with the others, that it was not her responsibility to ensure that it got walked through, and that her data was never entered into the system.  She also adamantly states that she never deployed to Bosnia, was never in Bosnia, and that she remained in Germany the entire time.

Upon receipt of the applicant’s rebuttal to the advisory opinion, a legal advisor to the Board contacted the applicant in order to resolve the discrepancy between the applicant’s statement that she had never deployed to Bosnia and the presence of a travel voucher completed and signed by the applicant indicating that she had in fact deployed to Bosnia.  Initially, the applicant indicated (in effect) that she thought she had removed the travel voucher from her packet (application) and that she did not know where the voucher had come from.  In any event, she did not go to Bosnia and she did not sign the voucher.  The legal advisor informed her, it appears she did in fact sign the voucher and she responded that it was probably one she filled out before travel.  She responded to the effect that she did not recall the voucher but that she was sure she was never paid for the voucher.  The legal advisor then queried the applicant regarding her injuries and asked the applicant if she had memory problems, in light of her records revealing a head injury.  The applicant became defensive and responded to the effect that his question was not fair.  The legal advisor advised the applicant that he was simply searching for matters that might resolve conflict raised by her denial of serving in Bosnia when documents indicate she did so.

During the processing of the case a copy of the applicant’s travel voucher and claims paid on the voucher were obtained from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service by officials at the ARPERSCOM.  They (17-page voucher) show that the applicant was paid $22,777.90 for her travel during the period in question and that the funds were directly deposited into her account.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, dated 10 February 1996, authorized the RRMIIP with an initial start date of 1 October 1996.  The RRMIIP was designed to provide income insurance for most Reserve Component members who were involuntarily ordered to active duty in support of military operations for over 30 days.  The initial enrollment period for active members of the Reserve Components (USAR and National Guard) was 1 October 1996 through 31 December 1996.  Personnel who failed to enroll within 60 days after being briefed were considered to have declined.  Personnel who enlisted in a Troop Program Unit after the initial enrollment period were required to be briefed on the program within 60 days of arrival in the unit and had 60 days after being briefed to enroll or decline.  Personnel who elected an option less than the maximum could not at a later date increase their option; however, they had the option at any time to decrease the amount of the coverage.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, effective 18 November 1997, terminated the RRMIIP coverage for those not ordered to involuntary active duty as of that date and prohibited new enrollments.  Consequently, the USAR and the Army National Guard extended the administrative appeal/errors process to offer Reserve Component soldiers who believed that they were wrongfully denied enrollment an opportunity to appeal.  All appeals had to be received in complete form as of 30 June 1998.

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

1. The issue in this case is whether or not the applicant was properly briefed on the RRMIIP, was it accomplished within the prescribed timeframe and whether or not she actually submitted an RRMIIP application in a timely manner.  The Board is convinced that the applicant was not briefed on the RRMIIP during the initial enrollment period because no one in the unit was briefed according to the commander.  However; given the conflicting evidence submitted by the applicant, the Board is not convinced that she was not subsequently briefed on the program either during her mobilization processing or while deployed overseas.  

2.  It appears to the Board that the applicant was briefed on the RRMIIP subsequent to her call to active duty and simply failed to complete the forms for enrollment prior to the deadline of the appeals process.  Accordingly, she was not entitled to enrollment after the appeals deadline and she has failed to convince the Board that it should allow her to do so at this time.

3.  The Board notes in her rebuttal to the advisory opinion and her conversation with the legal advisor that she was not in Bosnia, that she did not file a claim for duty in Bosnia and that she was never paid for such a claim.  However, the evidence of record shows that she in fact did file a claim and was paid for duty in Bosnia.

4.  The Board also notes that she claims that she was never briefed in any form on the RRMIIP, yet in her separate statements during her attempts to obtain benefits, she indicates that she filled out the paperwork along with everyone else and turned them in to her supervisor.  She also indicates in a separate statement to the ARPERSCOM that she served in Bosnia from November 1997 to February 1998.

5.  Therefore, in light of the discrepancies noted and the lack of sufficient evidence to support the applicant’s contentions, the Board must presume that the applicant was briefed on the RRMIIP prior to the 30 June 1998 deadline for appeals and simply failed to do so.  Accordingly, the failure on her part to timely submit her appeal does not necessarily constitute an error or injustice on the part of the Department.

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.  It is noted that the Board has reviewed previous cases in which applicants were briefed on the RRMIIP and simply failed to submit the paperwork to the appropriate authorities.  In each of these cases the Board denied their applications.  Given the Board’s responsibility, it must be convinced that the evidence used to corroborate an error or injustice by the Department is credible and not suspect.  The Board does not find this to be true in this case.   

8.  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

___hbo__  __slp____  ___jh ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000045687	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/02/13	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  13	101.0000/rrmiip	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.