MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           26 JULY 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001056350

	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. Raymond V. O’Connor 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry 		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen 		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:  Special separation pay (SSP).

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant states that he should receive SSP based on his removal on 25 February 1994 from a deleted Individual Mobilization Augmentation (IMA) position because of the revision of the Mobilization (MOB) TDA/TOE.

He states that the Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) has gone on line and indicated that the reason for his removal was based on the revision of the MOB TDA/TOE for Fort Shafter.  

The applicant states that an injustice was done to him by two NCOs at             AR-PERSCOM in repeatedly refusing to reassign him to any number of IMA positions for which he was qualified upon the deletion from his IMA position at Fort Shafter.  He stated that upon receiving assignment orders to the IMA position in Hawaii, he made arrangements to perform two weeks of annual training as required; however, he was informed that the position had been earmarked for deletion due to the revision of the MOB TDA/TOE and he could not train.  He stated that historically IMA soldiers have been allowed to perform annual training with the assigned agency at least once even though their position had been identified for deletion.  He was not given that opportunity.  

He stated that he obtained attachment orders to AR-PERSCOM to train for points only, but wasted over 5 months trying to get another IMA position, only to be continually denied.  Consequently, he requested transfer to the Retired Reserve. 
 
EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records are those furnished by the applicant, and show:

On 8 October 1993 the applicant, a master sergeant in the Army Reserve, was reassigned from the Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) at St. Louis to the USA Support Command Hawaii to fill an authorized individual mobilization augmentee position.  

On 29 November 1993 the applicant was attached to the Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) in order to train for points only.

On 25 February 1994 he was released from his IMA position at Fort Shafter and reassigned to the Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement).  The reason for his reassignment is given as “Requested by Prop Agncy.”

On 26 July 1994 the applicant transferred to the Retired Reserve.

A series of E-mail traffic between the applicant, officials in Hawaii, and the acting IMA team chief at AR-PERSCOM, shows attempts to determine whether the applicant’s IMA position was indeed deleted in 1994.  In a 3 April 2001 message the acting IMA team chief confirmed [to the applicant] that the statement “Requested by Prop Agency” was the statement most commonly used at that time to reassign an IMA soldier from a deleted position to the IRR (Individual Ready Reserve).  

A chronological statement of retirement points shows that the applicant earned 60 points for the retirement year beginning on 9 February 1993 and ending on     8 February 1994.  Seventeen of those 60 points were active duty points. 

Army Regulation 140-10 prescribes policies, responsibilities, and procedures to assign, attach, detail, remove, or transfer Army Reserve soldiers.  Paragraph 2-4 states in effect that the selected Reserve consists of Troop Program Units, the Control Group (IMA), and the Control Group (Active Guard Reserve). 

Army Regulation 140-145 prescribes policies and procedures governing  the management and administration of the United States Army Reserve (USAR) Individual Mobilization Augmentation (IMA) Program, and states in pertinent part that IMA, as Selected Reserve members, are subject to immediate, involuntary 
order to active duty whenever a Presidential Selected Reserve Call-Up (PSRC)  is invoked under 10 USC 673 b.  IMA soldiers are also subject to involuntary order to active duty in time of war or national emergency when declared by the President or Congress under title 10, USC, sections 672 and 673.

That regulation goes on to say that IMAs must be assigned to an authorized  military mobilization billet which has been properly documented on an organization's Mobilization Table of Distribution and Allowance (MOBTDA) or Modified Table of Organization and Equipment (MTOE).  Under 10 USC 270 and DOD Directive 1235.11, IMA soldiers are required to perform a minimum of        12 days of annual training (AT) per year with their assigned IMA proponent agency.  While the scope and nature of an IMA soldier's training is largely determined by their unit, all such training will be focused on those specific 
duties and responsibilities the soldier will be expected to perform when ordered to active duty.
 
IMA soldiers may be removed from their positions for various reasons to include a MOBTDA/MTOE change which deletes an IMA requirement to which a soldier is currently assigned.  In this regard, proponent  agencies  are encouraged to notify ARPERCEN of any pending changes to their TAADS documents as soon as possible.  This will allow for appropriate  personnel reassignment/removal actions in a timely manner.
  
On 30 November 1994 the Assistant Secretary of Defense provided to the service secretaries implementing guidance for the Selected Reserve transition programs authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 102-484, and implemented in a 11 March 1993 policy memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Personnel Policy.  This guidance incorporated statutory changes effected in the National Defense Authorization Acts for FY 1994 and FY 1995 and policy modifications necessary to ensure the effective operation of Reserve transition programs through the force drawdown period.

In effect, Public Law 102-484 authorized special separation pay for selected Reserve members who are discharged or transferred from the Selected Reserve because of unit inactivation or reorganization from 23 October 1992 through       30 September 1995 (since extended to 30 September 2001).  This pay was authorized those soldiers with 20 or more years of qualifying service for retired pay who lose their position because of unit inactivation or reorganization, contingent upon the soldier’s request for transfer 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 evidence is not clear, but it is possible that the applicant was reassigned to the Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) in February 1994 because his IMA position was deleted from the MOB TDA/TOE.  

2.  Nevertheless, the applicant was assigned to an IMA position in Hawaii on       8 October 1993, and less than two months later opted for an attachment to the ARPERCEN to train for points only indicating, as he implies, that he was aware that he would be reassigned from the IMA position, which did occur in February of 1994.  The applicant never trained in that IMA position, as he has stated.  In effect, his assignment to the IMA position was a paper drill.  He did nothing, but reverted back to the Control Group (Reinforcement) after a 4 month hiatus.  The chronological statement of his retirement points shows that he had a qualifying year for retirement purposes during the period of his assignment to the IMA position.  

3.  The applicant did request transfer to the Retired Reserve and his request was granted; however, that transfer took place 7 months after he had secured attachment to ARPERCEN to drill for points, and 5 months after his reassignment from the IMA position at Fort Shafter.  He lost his IMA position, but did not immediately request transfer to the Retired Reserve, but was assigned to the Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement), where he attempted to obtain another IMA assignment to no avail, as he himself has stated.  Now, some seven years after his transfer to the Retired Reserve, the applicant is requesting SSP.  However, he did not transfer to the Retired Reserve because he had lost his position in the selected Reserve.  He transferred to the Retired Reserve from the IRR on his own volition, not because he lost a position in the selected Reserve.   At the time of his transfer he was not assigned to a selected Reserve unit, but assigned to the IRR (Individual Ready Reserve).  The applicant is not entitled to SSP.   

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

5.  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.
  
6.  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

__RVO__  __HOF  _  __ENA __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001056350	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010726	
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.	128.00	
2.	338	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.