MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           27 August 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002071739

	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:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		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 he be provided monetary compensation and retirement points for the service he would have performed had the Army allowed him to remain serving.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect,  that he was scheduled to attend the warrant officer personnel technician course at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, until he was discharged by the Army.  He claims that had he been allowed to attend school, he would have completed his military education requirement and gone to monthly drills and annual training.  He also indicates that the summer before his discharge, he served for 3 weeks at Fort Benning, Georgia, processing troops and civilian contractors for movement to Bosnia, Greece, Macedonia, Italy, and other military hot spots, which shows that he was capable of and would have performed the required military service.  In support of his application, he provides a Board decisional document (AR2000050354), dated 20 September 2001.

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

Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the record of proceedings prepared to reflect the Board's 20 September 2001 review of the applicant’s case (AR2000050354).  

The applicant’s military records show that he was appointed a second lieutenant in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) in 1968.  He served on active duty for three years and subsequently served in a United States Army Reserve (USAR) Troop Program Unit (TPU).  In 1996, while serving as a lieutenant colonel (LTC) in a TPU, he applied for a Reserve warrant officer appointment.  

On 1 July 1996, orders were published directing the applicant’s transfer to the Retired Reserve on 2 July 1995, based on his having reached his mandatory removal date (MRD).  On 19 December 1996, an amendment to these orders was published that changed the effective date to 2 July 1996, the applicant’s correct MRD.  

On 12 September 1996, the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), St. Louis, Missouri, Reserve Appointments Branch, issued the applicant a memorandum of appointment as a Reserve warrant officer one (WO1), in military occupational specialty (MOS) 0420A (Military Personnel Technician).  The applicant signed the oath of office accepting this appointment on 14 September 1996.  

On 9 October 1996, the applicant enrolled in the Phase 1, MOS 0420A, Reserve Component (RC) Warrant Officer Basic Course (WOBC), and he completed 
9 credit hours.  

On 18 October 1996, orders were published assigning the applicant to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement), effective 14 September 1996.  This order was never posted to the Reserve Data Management System (RDMS).  

According to the automated data contained on the Soldier Management System (SMS), on 12 November 1996, the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM) Warrant Officer Management Team (WOMT) received a Request for RC Assignment or Attachment (DA Form 4651-R) from the 
104th Training Division (Reserve), requesting that the applicant be assigned to a 
WO1 position in their headquarters.  The WOMT denied this request because the RDMS indicated that the applicant was assigned to the Retired Reserve as a LTC.  The WOMT noted that the RDMS needed to be changed to show the applicant became a WO1, effective 16 September 1996, and that he was assigned to the IRR on that date.  The WOMT checked with PERSCOM, 
St. Louis, Appointments Branch, and it was concluded that the applicant had been appointed after his MRD, and that his appointment should be revoked.  There is no indication that this action ever took place.  

According to the SMS, on 16 January 1997, the applicant asked the WOMT about a transfer from the Retired Reserve to the IRR.  The WOMT provided the applicant with a copy of the pertinent part of Army Regulation 140-10 that applied to such a transfer.  

On 25 July 1997, the applicant signed an Application for Correction of Military Records (DD Form 149), in which he requested that he be removed from the Retired Reserve, placed in the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement), Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), and that he be allowed to retain his appointment as a Reserve WO1.  He claims that he applied for appointment and submitted his packet to be considered by an appointment board that was scheduled to convene in May 1996; however, it did not convene and he was not considered for appointment until August 1996.  He was recommended for appointment by the August 1996 board, but during this process he was transferred to the Retired Reserve due to his MRD, and received his memorandum of appointment after he had been transferred to the Retired Reserve.  He claimed that had he been considered by the appointment board in May 1996, as it was originally scheduled, this circumstance would not have happened.  There is no record of this application ever reaching the Board for consideration.  

On 13 October 1998, the applicant was disenrolled from 0420A RC WOBC for non-completion.  

On 25 January 1999, orders were published that revoked orders and amendments that directed the applicant’s transfer to the Retired Reserve in July 1996.  Orders were also published on this same date that directed the applicant’s transfer to the IRR, effective 9 June 1995, the day prior to his reaching his MRD. Based on these orders, the PERSCOM, St. Louis, Reserve Appointments Branch, published a corrected appointment memorandum on the applicant that indicated an effective date of appointment to WO1 of 10 June 1996. 

On 29 April 1999, the applicant was transferred from the IRR to a TPU, and he received an officer evaluation report (OER) as a WO1 for the period 
22 February through 16 October 1999.  According to unit records, the applicant was assigned to the TPU on 29 April 1999, and he performed his first drills with the unit in May 1999, which resulted in his earning 6 retirement points.  

A Chronological Statement of Retirement Points (ARPC Form 249-2-E), dated 
2 July 1999, issued by the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM), St. Louis, Missouri, confirms that as of 1 June 1995 the applicant had accrued a total of 25 years of qualifying service for retirement.

In its earlier consideration of this case, the Board concluded that due to numerous errors in dates in the appointment process and transfers among the RC between June 1996 and February 1999, the applicant was effectively prevented from completing his RC warrant officer training requirements within the prescribed period, which by regulation was three years.  By the time the errors in his appointment dates and transfers were finally resolved, he was left with only
7 months to complete the required training prior to his appointment being revoked based on his failure to complete this required training. 

After supporting its findings with further conclusions, the Board finally recommended that the applicant’s records be corrected by, in effect, issuing him a new memorandum of appointment as a Reserve warrant officer; providing him a “Statement of Understanding for Appointment as a Warrant Officer” for his signature and return within 90 days of receipt, with his statement of acknowledgement that he was required to complete the WOBC, Phases 1 and 
2, within two years, and that he was eligible to receive a 1 year extension on this 
2 year completion requirement if he were an RC warrant officer not on active duty and through no fault of his own, he could not finish the technical and tactical certification within 2 years; and finally that upon receipt of his completed appointment documents that he would be transferred from the Retired Reserve, as a LTC, and be assigned to the IRR, as a WO1. 

On 18 November 2001, as a result of the Board action, the applicant was appointed a WO1 and assigned to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).  

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 that he should receive monetary compensation and service credit for the period he was not allowed to serve as a warrant officer.  However, it finds an insufficient evidentiary basis to support the requested relief.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was transferred to the Retired Reserve as a LTC in accordance with applicable regulations based on his having reached his MRD.  This action took place after the applicant had accrued sufficient retirement qualifying service in that status.  

3.  The Board in its previous decision concluded that, based on numerous errors in the processing of the applicant’s request to be appointed a warrant officer, it would be in the interest of justice to provide him sufficient time to complete the required warrant officer training with an updated warrant officer appointment to be effective upon his acceptance.  Its recommendations were based on resolving the injustice related to the administrative errors in the original appointment process, and did not include monetary compensation or the granting of service credit for the period he was in the Retired Reserve as a commissioned officer.  

4.  The Board finds the relief granted in the previous Board decision was appropriate to resolve the injustice the applicant suffered as a result of the administrative errors associated with his warrant officer appointment.  However, it notes that the applicant completed the necessary qualifying service for retirement prior to being placed on the Retired List as a commissioned officer upon reaching his MRD, an action that was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations.

5.  In view of the facts of this case, the Board concludes that the administrative errors in his warrant officer appointment, while deserving of relief for that particular issue, did not deny him a retirement entitlement or rise to the level of injustice that would warrant granting service credit and monetary compensation for a period he did not actually serve, and while he was in a valid commissioned officer status on the Retired List.

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

__INW__  __AAO __  _ _TL__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002071739	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/08/27	
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.  1023	106.0010	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.