PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:          

	BOARD DATE:                 31 January 2002                         
	DOCKET NUMBER:        AR2001061475

	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	
	Ms. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show his narrative reason for separation as “Reduction in Authorized Strength” instead of “Failure of Selection – Permanent Promotion.”

3.  The applicant states that his DD Form 214 incorrectly shows he was released from active duty due to “Failure of Selection – Permanent Promotion”.  He states that he was not scheduled for promotion from first lieutenant to captain until June 1994 or 1995.  He continues to state that he was selected in time for promotion to captain in June 1994.  In support of his application, he submits a supplemental letter, a copy of his DD Form 214, a DA Form 71 (Oath of Office), a certificate of appointment in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), a NGB Form 337 (Oaths of Office) in the Army National Guard (ARNG), orders for Federal recognition in the ARNG, orders for appointment in the ARNG, a letter from the Chief, Accessions Branch, a memorandum from the USAR Personnel Center, active duty orders, reassignment orders, a DA Form 78 (Recommendation for Promotion of Officer), and a notification letter promoting him to the rank of captain.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he is currently serving in the USAR in the rank of captain.

5.  The applicant initially served in the U.S. Navy from 12 December 1975 to 19 January 1981.  He further served in the Regular Army and the ARNG during the period 20 January 1981 through 11 June 1987.

6.  He was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer on 12 June 1987 in the rank of second lieutenant.  

7.  On 18 July 1987, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer in the ARNG in the rank of second lieutenant.  He was granted Federal recognition in the ARNG by National Guard Bureau Special Orders Number 51, dated 16 March 1988.  His Federal recognition in the ARNG was withdrawn on 24 September 1989.  He was accessed into the USAR on 25 September 1989 to serve as an active duty officer.  

8.  The applicant was promoted to the rank of first lieutenant with an effective date and date of rank of 11 June 1990.

9.  By memorandum dated 15 October 1991, the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) notified the applicant that he was nonselect for retention on active duty by the Lieutenant Retention Board.  He was advised that his nonselection for retention on active duty was under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-215 (Officer Periods of Service on Active Duty) and that his release from active duty would be no later than 1 February 1992.  

10.  On 7 November 1991, the applicant acknowledged receipt of his notification memorandum informing him of his pending release from active duty due to nonselection by the Lieutenant Retention Board.  He also acknowledged that his release date from active duty had been established as 1 February 1992.

11.  Orders were published by the Personnel Service Center at Fort Riley, Kansas, which released the applicant from active duty effective 14 February 1992.  His DD Form 214 shows he was released from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-100, chapter 3, section XXVI, for failure of selection – permanent promotion.  His separation code shows “LGB” (Failure of Selection – Permanent Promotion) in item 26 (Separation Code).  

12.  The applicant’s records contain a letter, dated 10 March 1992, from the Chief of the Transition Point at the 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized) in Fort Riley, Kansas.  This letter indicates that a request was made to the Army Reserve Personnel Center to correct item 25 (Separation Authority) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 to show “AR 635-100, Para 3-49g,” to correct item 26 (Separation Code) to show “LCC”, and to correct item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) to show “Reduction in Authorized Strength.”  However, there is no indication in the applicant’s records which shows he was issued a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) to show these corrections.

13.  Army Regulation 635-100 provides the authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers from the Active Army.  Section XXVI, paragraph 3-98a(2) of this regulation, in effect at the time, specifically provided for the involuntary release of Reserve commissioned officers in the grade of first lieutenant, captain or major upon failure to be selected for the next higher grade after a second consideration. 

14.  Army Regulation 635-100, Section XII, paragraph 3-49g, in effect at the time, states that a DAADB will be convened to determine which officers will be released from active duty when budgetary or authorization limitations require a reduction of officer strength.  Officers designated for release under this paragraph are not considered ineffective or substandard in duty performance.  Their release is dictated by the needs of the Service.

15.  Army Regulation 135-215 (Officer Periods of Service on Active Duty) provides for officers of the Reserve Components to serve on extended active duty.  Chapter 3 of this regulation states, in pertinent part, that all Other Than Regular Army (OTRA) Army competitive category commissioned officers on the active duty list who have completed or who are within 1 year of completing their initial obligated volunteer status are eligible for automatic board consideration for Voluntary Indefinite (VI) status.  The regulation also states that officers pending involuntary release under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-100 for release for substandard performance, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction; for civil conviction; for elimination; and for release pending appellate review are ineligible for VI status.

16.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.  The regulation shows that the separation program designator “LCC” specifies the narrative reason for discharge as “Reduction in Authorized Strength” and that the authority for discharge under this separation program designator is “AR 635-100, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3-49g.”

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer in the rank of second lieutenant on 12 June 1987.

2.  He was promoted to the rank of first lieutenant in the USAR on 11 June 1990.

3.  The applicant was notified on 15 October 1991 that he was nonselect for retention on active duty by the Lieutenant Retention Board under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-215.  As a result, he was released from active duty on 14 February 1992.  

4.  His DD Form 214 shows he was separated from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-100, chapter 3, Section XXVI, for failure of selection – permanent promotion.

5.  Based on the governing regulation, in effect at the time, the Board has determined that the applicant should have been separated from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-100, paragraph 3-49g, for Reduction in Authorized Strength.  

6.  Therefore, as a matter of equity, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s DD Form 214 to show he was separated from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-100, paragraph 3-49g, based on Reduction in Authorized Strength.

7.  Based on paragraph 6, above, the applicant is also entitled to correction of item 26 (Separation Code) of his DD Form 214 to show the entry “LCC” (Reduction in Authorized Strength).

8.  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 the individual concerned be corrected by issuing him a new DD Form 214, substantially the same as the DD Form 214 he now holds, with the following changes incorporated:

	a.  amendment of item 25 (Separation Authority) of his DD Form 214 to show the entry “Army Regulation 635-100, paragraph 3-49g;”

	b.  amendment of item 26 (Separation Code) of his DD Form 214 to show the entry “LCC” (Reduction in Authorized Strength); and

	c.  amendment of item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his DD Form 214 to show the entry “Reduction in Authorized Strength.”

BOARD VOTE:  

RVO_____  EJA____  RKS____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Raymond V. O’Connor___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061475	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020131	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19920214	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-100,chapter 3 Sec XXVI	
DISCHARGE REASON	Failure of Selection – Permanent Promotion	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.