MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            25 June 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002068045

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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:  In effect, that his request for branch transfer into the  Special Forces Branch (SFB) in specialty 18A be approved.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he meets the requirements to be awarded the 18A specialty and for a transfer into the SFB.  He states that he has Department of the Army (DA) orders issued by the United States Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center (USAJFKSWC), which awarded him the Special Forces (SF) Tab, and the additional skill identifier (ASI) 5G (SF), which preceded the 18A specialty.  At the time he was awarded the SF Tab, he was serving as a first lieutenant (1LT), and when he recently applied for transfer into the SFB, his request was denied by the SF proponency office.  The reason cited for the denial was that he failed to meet the requirements for transfer into SFB, as outlined in DA Pamphlet 600-3, paragraph 15-7(3).  These current requirements are that one must complete SF Assessment and Selection, a SF Officers Detachment Officers Qualification Course, language training, and survival evasion resistance and escape training.  He claims that the requirements for award of the SF Tab he received, as outlined in Army Regulation 672-5-1, were completion of a 
SF qualification course, without a distinction being made between an officer and enlisted course. He claims that in his case, he completed the enlisted course, became an officer, and served in various SF officer capacities to include detachment and company command.  In addition to completion of the qualification course, this regulation indicates that the ASI 5G and the SF Tab must be awarded by competent authority, which was the case for him.  He states that he contacted the SF proponency office and brought this to their attention, but was told that because he was a 1LT at the time the SF Tab was awarded to him, he was given the Tab as an officer.  However, in reality it is an enlisted Tab based on the course he completed.  They further indicated that he would have to complete all current criteria to be awarded the specialty 18A and transfer into the SFB.  He states that he finds no regulation to support this claim, and comments that if he was qualified in 1984, he does not understand why he is not qualified now.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his branch transfer packet, SF Tab orders, and extracts of the governing regulations.  

The applicant submitted a supplemental letter with additional information pertaining to the criteria in effect at the time he was awarded the ASI of 5G and the SF Tab, and what he claims was the governing regulatory authority at the time.  He further comments that the reason he received the SF Tab and the ASI 5G was that he had spent over two years serving as a SF officer on an A Team, which authorized the award of the ASI and Tab based on work experience, as authorized by the regulatory guidance in effect at the time.  

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

He is currently in the Utah Army National Guard (ARNG) and assigned to the 
19th Special Forces Group (SFG), Draper, Utah.  He holds the rank of major (MAJ), his basic branch is infantry, and he is performing duties in specialty 39B, as a Psychological Operations (PSYOP) officer.  

On 30 March 1979, while serving in an enlisted status, the applicant completed the SF Qualification Course at the United States Army Institute for Military Assistance, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  

In 1981, he became a commissioned officer and served in various positions within a SF unit for the next four years.  Orders Number 63-13, dated 30 March 1979, awarded the applicant the SF special qualification identifier of S and  Orders Number 181-13, dated 31 October 1984, issued by the USAJFKSWC, Fort Bragg, awarded him the SF Tab under the provisions of paragraph 5-30, Army Regulation 672-5-1, based on his having been awarded the ASI of 5G.  

The applicant’s record shows that between 6 October 1985 and 31 March 1991, he served in various SF Detachment Commander positions, which included 
12 months as a commander of a SF A Team.  In addition, from 1 August 1997 through 31 May 1998, he served in an 18A position as the company commander of a SF readiness enhancement company.  

On the dates indicated, the applicant successfully completed and graduated from the following courses:  13 November 1992, Civil Affairs Officer Advance Course (OAC); 29 July 1995, Combined Army and Services Staff School; 14 June 1996, PSYOP Officer course; and 3 February 1999, Command and General Staff Officer Course (CG&SC).

On 24 October 2000, the applicant submitted an application packet requesting that he be branch transferred into the SFB based on his SF training and assignment background.  This application was favorably endorsed by the applicant’s chain of command and by the Utah ARNG headquarters.  

On 31 January 2001, the Assistant Commandant, USAJFKSWC, Fort Bragg, disapproved the applicant’s branch transfer request based on the applicant not meeting the requirements for branch transfer under the provisions of paragraph 15-7(3), DA PAM 600-3.  He further indicated that there was no indication that the applicant completed any version of the SF Detachment Officer Qualification Course, language training, or SERE training.  The disapproval action finally indicated that although the applicant had served in the SF community for many years, the requirements for branch transfer for Reserve Component (RC) officers were the same as those for active component officers in accordance with paragraph 15-8, DA Pam 600-3.  
Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) contains the current criteria and policy for award of the SF Tab in paragraph 8-47, and it states, in pertinent part, that approval authority for this award is the Commander, USAJFKSWC, Fort Bragg.  Paragraph 8-47b contains the basic eligibility criteria for the SF Tab, and it states in pertinent part that the SF Tab may be awarded to any person in the Active Army or an active Reserve status who has successfully completed the 
SF Qualification Course or the SF Officer Course.  RC soldiers in an active Reserve status must successfully complete the resident SF Qualification Course, the RC SF Qualification Course, or a program of instruction approved by the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC).  In addition, RC personnel must have been awarded, by competent authority, the ASI 5G or 3 in an MOS in the Functional Management Field 18.  It further specifies that subsequent to 1955, RC personnel must have successfully served for 120 consecutive days, or more, as a company grade officer or enlisted member of a SF Operational Detachment (A-Team), Mobile Strike Force, Special Forces Reconnaissance Team or 
SF Special Project Unit and must have been awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) or Combat Medical Badge (CMB) for such service.

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 Board notes the applicant’s contention his request for branch transfer into the SFB should be approved based on his being qualified, as evidenced by his being awarded the SF Tab and ASI 5G, and his record of successful performance in SF positions and units.  However, the Board finds this does not provide a sufficient evidentiary basis to grant the requested relief. 

2.  The applicant’s claim that he was awarded the SF Tab and the ASI of 5G in 1984 is not in question, and given they were awarded by the proper authority at the time, the Board elects not to render a judgment on their validity.  Further, the record clearly shows that over an almost 6 year period, the applicant served in various SF detachment commander positions, which included 12 months as a commander of a SF A Team.  In addition, for a 10 month period in 1997 and 1998, he served in an 18A position as the company commander of a 
SF readiness enhancement company.  

3.  However, the Board notes that the current regulation appears to stipulate that RC members who were awarded the ASI 5G subsequent to 1955, which is the policy applicable to the applicant, must have served for 120 consecutive days or more as a company grade officer or enlisted member of an SF Operational Detachment (A-Team), Mobile Strike Force, Special Forces Reconnaissance Team or SF Special Project Unit, and must have been awarded the CIB or CMB for such service.  Although it is clear the applicant served in one or more of these positions for the time required, there is no evidence to indicate he earned either the CIB or CMB for such service. 

4.  DA officials responsible for approving branch transfers into the SFB have concluded that the applicant’s qualifications do not satisfy the current SFB standards required of officers accepted into the 18 functional field.  In the opinion of the Board, no matter what a soldier’s background, it is not unreasonable for these DA officials to use their best judgment in making the decision to accept an officer into the SFB based on their determination of the soldier’s ability to perform the mission required of them today.  This is especially true in the case of SFB soldiers given the dynamic nature of their unique mission requirements.  

5.  In view of the facts of this case, the Board is not in a position to, nor does it desire to substitute its judgment for that of the DA officials assigned the responsibility for making the branch transfer decision in question.  Therefore, the Board concludes that there is an insufficient evidentiary basis on which to grant the requested relief. 

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

__JNS __  _ _EJA_ _  _ _TL_ __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068045	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/06/25	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	N/A	
DISCHARGE REASON	N/A	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  6	100.0500	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.