MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           3 April 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001051866

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas F. Baxter		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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:  That his discharge be voided and he be placed in the Retired Reserve.

APPLICANT STATES:  He had received his notification of eligibility for retired pay at age 60 (his 20-year letter) in 1986.  When he was relocated from Texas to North Carolina in August 1986, he out-processed from his unit.  He was unaware of the difference between “discharge” and “transfer to Retired Reserve.”  Supporting evidence is as listed on the continuation to the DD Form 149.

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

He was born on 1 September 1943.  After having had prior enlisted service in the U. S. Navy and U. S. Navy Reserve, he entered the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) as a commissioned officer on 1 February 1966.  He was promoted to Major on  30 January 1979.  His 20-year letter is dated 10 August 1986.

On 17 November 1986, the applicant was notified that he had been considered for promotion but not selected.  He was informed that his commander would advise him of separation procedures and any options available to him by separate correspondence.  The notification was sent to a North Carolina address.

Orders dated 27 January 1987 discharged the applicant from the USAR effective 3 February 1987.  The authorities for separation listed on the orders were Army Regulation  140-10, paragraph 7-4b (removal from an active status due to second time nonselection for promotion) and Army Regulation 135-175, paragraph 4-4a(5)(a) (removal from an active status, with or without the officer’s consent by discharge or transfer to the Retired Reserve (if eligible and if requested) due to second time nonselection for promotion).

The applicant’s Chronological Statement of Retirement Points dated                    1 September 2000 erroneously credits him with 15 membership points earned after retirement year ending 31 January 1988.

In October 1999, guidance put out by the Under Secretary of Defense provided that former members of the Reserve Components are entitled to certain benefits.

Army Regulation 135-180 implements statutory authorities governing the granting of retired pay to soldiers and former Reserve components soldiers.  Each qualified individual is responsible for submitting an application for retired pay  (DD Form 108) 6 months prior to age 60 and that those without a current military status may obtain the form from a local Reserve Component unit or by writing AR-PERSCOM.

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 this requirement.

2.  The Board does not find it reasonable to believe that a field grade commissioned officer would not know the difference between “discharge” and “transfer to Retired Reserve.”  The Board does not find it reasonable to believe that the applicant did not understand that the orders, which quoted two authorities for his separation, were discharging him for twice failing to be selected for promotion.  His notification of nonselection for promotion was sent to his address in North Carolina.  It indicated he would be apprised of his options by his commander by separate correspondence.  If he did not have a commander in North Carolina, it would have been reasonable for him to contact the Army Reserve Personnel Center at that time to obtain information about his options.  

3.  The Under Secretary’s memorandum and attachment are provided to the applicant so he may utilize those administrative remedies to obtain the documents needed to authorize him the benefits to which he is currently entitled.
He will be entitled to retired pay and its accompanying benefits on 1 September 2003.  He is reminded to submit an application for retired pay approximately        6 months prior to that date.

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

__wtm___  __tfb___  __jtm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001051866	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010403	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	135.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.