PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            2 October 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001056796

	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.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		Member	

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

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that her discharge from the United States Army Reserve (USAR) be voided and that she be reinstated to her previous status. 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was assigned to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) on 6 August 1996 and on 2 October 1997 was assigned to a unit to drill for points only.  She goes on to state that when she attempted to have her points updated, she was advised that she was not authorized to drill for points only.  She further states that had she known this she would not have reenlisted for another 3 years.  She continues by stating that she contacted officials at the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM) and was advised to submit a DA Form 4651-R (Request for Reserve Component Assignment or Attachment).  The next thing she received from the ARPERSCOM was a discharge order and a call informing her that she was discharged for non-participation with the Individual Augmentee Program (IMA), a program she did not even know she was in.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that she initially enlisted in the USAR on 18 May 1978 under the Delayed Entry Program.  She enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 October 1978 and served until she was honorably released from active duty and was transferred to the USAR.   

5.  On 2 October 1997, orders were published which directed a voluntary reassignment from the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) to a unit at McDill Air Force Base, Florida (HQ, CENTCOM).  Those orders were amended on 20 February 1998 to reflect that the applicant was authorized to drill as an IMA and that drills performed prior to 20 February 1998 were for points only.  

6.  The Records of Individual Performance of Reserve Duty Training (DA Form 1380) submitted by the applicant show that during the period of 8 January 1998 to 16 March 1999, she performed 22 drills for a total of 44 points.

7.  On 1 February 1999, she reenlisted for a period of 3 years in the pay grade of E-5.  There is no indication in his reenlistment contract which indicates that she was guaranteed to drill for points only.

8.  On 22 June 1999, the ARPERSCOM published a Chronological Statement of Retirement Points (ARPC Form 249-2-E) which indicates that the applicant had 20 qualifying years of service for retirement.

9.  On 17 April 2000, the applicant submitted a DA Form 4651-R to the ARPERSCOM requesting assignment to an engineer unit for points only.  The engineer unit was the same battalion in which she had drilled with from January 1998 to March 1999. 
10.  On 4 May 2000, the ARPERSCOM published orders discharging her from the USAR effective 10 May 2000.

11.  In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the 81st Regional Support Team (RST), which opined that the applicant’s records had not been updated to reflect her correct expiration of term of service (ETS) after her last reenlistment.  Accordingly, discharge orders were generated automatically. The Chief of the 81st RST opined that her discharge orders should be revoked and that she should be reinstated to the IRR for future training opportunities.  The opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and she concurred with the opinion as written.

12.  Army Regulation 135-178, in effect at the time, established the policies, standards, and procedures governing the administrative procedures governing the administrative separation of enlisted soldiers from the Reserve Components. Paragraph 1-3 states, in pertinent part, that orders discharging a soldier would not be revoked or the effective date changed after the effective date of discharge unless there was a manifest error or fraud.  After the effective date of discharge, orders could not be amended by the separation authority only to correct manifest errors such as the wrong character of service or correct administrative errors such as errors concerning rank, social security number, or misspelled name.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant’s contract makes no mention of her being allowed to drill for points only, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the applicant was drilling for points only and therefore she should receive the appropriate credit for those drills she performed. 

2.  It also appears that the applicant was not fully aware of her status within the USAR, nor was she diligent in checking her records to ensure that her records remained current.  In this regard the applicant was also negligent.  However, the Board finds that the applicant has been active in the USAR for many years and it appears that she is willing to remain active if given the opportunity.  Accordingly, the Board finds that it would be in the interest of justice to give her the opportunity to participate in the USAR, based on the needs of the service.

3.  Therefore, the Board finds that her discharged orders should be revoked and that she be reinstated to her previous status in the USAR with credit for all drills (points only) that she earned during the appropriate retirement years.

4.  In doing so, the Board encourages the applicant to contact her appropriate personnel management official at the ARPERSCOM to ascertain what her status is and what opportunities are available to her within the USAR.
5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by voiding the 10 May 2000 discharge of the individual concerned from the USAR, by reinstating her to her former status, and by awarding her all credit for drills performed.

BOARD VOTE:  

__rtd____  ___mkp _  ___kak__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Margaret K. Patterson____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001056796	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/10/02	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	2000/05/10	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR135-178 	
DISCHARGE REASON	ETS	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  333	135.0100/tran btwn comp	
2.  334	135.0200/ret pts crd	
3.  335	135.0300/chg status	
4.		
5.		
6.