SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            13 March 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2001053851

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  A quorum was present during the further consideration and deliberation.  The findings appearing in proceedings dated 27 October 1999 were modified as indicated.  The following additional findings, conclusions, and recommendation were adopted by the Board.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

	The Board convened at the call of the Director on the above date to reconsider the conclusions and recommendation appearing in proceedings dated 27 October 1999.

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	

	The applicant and counsel, if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following additional evidence:

	Exhibit A-  Department of the Army (DA) Form 5074-1-R (Record of Award of Entry Grade Credit-Health Services Officers), dated 3 November 1995. 

	Exhibit B-  Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), 
St. Louis, Missouri, Memorandum, Subject: Appointment as a Reserve Commissioned Officer if the Army under Title 10, USC 12201 and 12203, corrected copy dated 13 April 1998.  

	Exhibit C-  PERSCOM, St. Louis Memorandum, dated 23 January 2001, Subject: Application for Correction of Military Records. 

THE BOARD ADDITIONALLY FINDS:

11.  On 27 October 1999, this Board published a decisional document which directed a change to the applicant’s appointment grade and his promotion eligibility date to the next higher grade based on constructive credit of 5 years and 2 days documented in his original United States Army Reserve (USAR) appointment letter, dated 24 October 1995.  

12.  On 31 July 2000 a Certificate was issued by the Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Support Division Chief, St. Louis, Missouri.  This Certificate confirmed that the applicant’s records had been corrected as directed by this Board in its decisional document of 27 October 1999.

13.  Subsequent to the implementation of this Board’s 27 October 1999 decision, the DA Form 5074-1-R prepared on the applicant on 3 November 1995 and a corrected appointment letter, dated 13 April 1998, were discovered in applicant’s United States Army Reserve (USAR) appointment file.

14.  This DA Form 5074-1-R confirmed that at the time of his appointment, in accordance with Department of Defense (DOD) guidance, the applicant was entitled to receive only 2 months and 5 days of constructive credit based on his prior professional work experience, and not the 5 years and 2 days listed in his original appointment letter.  This constructive credit award was verified by the USAR Program Manager and the Chief of the Army Nurse Branch, both of whom authenticated this document with their signatures on 3 November 1995.

15.  The corrected appointment letter pertaining to the applicant, dated 13 April 1998, was published by PERSCOM, St. Louis and indicated that he was appointed a USAR Second Lieutenant (2LT) in the Army Nurse Corps and that he was awarded 2 months and 5 days of constructive credit in conjunction with his appointment acceptance date of 28 November 1995, as established by the DA 5074-1-R on file. 

16.  On 23 January 2001, a memorandum from the Chief, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components (RC), PERSCOM, St Louis, invited this Board’s attention to Exhibit B, the corrected appointment letter, issued on 13 April 1998, which had been published in response to an inquiry regarding the erroneous award 5 years and 2 days of constructive credit listed in the original appointment letter, dated 
24 October 1995.  

15.  The RC Promotions Branch Chief also commented that after being contacted by the applicant and his personnel management officer, he discovered, upon further coordination with the USAR Appointments Branch, that the original appointment letter used by the Board in rendering its decision on 27 October 1999 contained an erroneous constructive credit award of 5 years and 2 days.
17.  The RC Promotions Branch Chief further confirmed that the constructive credit awarded the applicant had been changed to 2 months and 5 days in the corrected appointment letter issued on 13 April 1998, which had been returned to the USAR Appointments Branch by postal authorities as undeliverable and resulted in the document never being filed in the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  Thus, it was not available to this Board during its original review of the case. 

THE BOARD ADDITIONALLY CONCLUDES: 

5.  At the time of the Board’s 27 October 1999 decision in this case, it was the intent of the Board to make the applicant’s record as administratively correct as it should properly have been at the time of his initial appointment based on the proper crediting of the constructive credit he was awarded in conjunction with his USAR appointment.  

6.  Notwithstanding the normal legal finality applicable to the decisions rendered by this Board, in view of the additional factors in this case that were discovered subsequent to the implementation of the Board’s original decision, the Board finds the original relief granted in this case was inappropriate based on records that existed at the time but that were not made available to this Board for review.

7.  In addition, the Board finds it reasonable to presume that, even if he did not know the exact amount of time, the applicant should have been aware that he was not entitled to 5 years and 2 days of constructive credit based on his professional work experience prior to his appointment. 

8.  Notwithstanding the normal finality associated with this Board’s decisions, given the incorrect data contained in the records reviewed by the Board and the application of reasonableness in regard to the applicant’s knowledge of his proper constructive credit entitlement, the Board concludes it would be appropriate to modify its original decision in this case. 

9.  Therefore, in the opinion of the Board, it would be improper and unjust to allow the original corrections, outlined in the decisional document issued by this Board on 27 October 1999, to stand.  The Board also concludes that the relief granted in its original findings should be modified and limited to providing all benefits associated with awarding the applicant 2 months and 5 days of constructive credit in conjunction with his appointment as a USAR 2LT on 28 November 1995, as confirmed by proper authorities.  

10.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by amending the Board’s recommendation appearing in the proceedings, dated 27 October 1999, to show that the individual concerned was awarded 2 months and 5 days of constructive credit in conjunction with his appointment as a 2LT in the USAR on 28 November 1995 and that his 2LT date of rank and subsequent promotion eligibility dates should be adjusted accordingly. 

BOARD VOTE:

__jm____  ___jh  ___  ___dh___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_____June Hajjar   ______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001053851	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/03/13	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PLUS	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  22	102.0800/credit constructive svc	
2.  14	102.0000/USAR officer appt	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.