PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            8 May 2003  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002073701

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Mr. Robert Duecaster		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 his military records be corrected to show award of the Army Staff Identification Badge (ASIB) and the Armed Forces Reserve Medal (AFRM). 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that having had the privilege of acting as an attorney that provided legal advice to this Board, and having the profound respect and pride for the work done by the Board, he hesitated to submit his application for relief.  He states the primary reason his application was not submitted within three years was because he felt it was insignificant as compared to the compelling matters handled by the Board.  Also as an Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) officer assigned to the Office of the Judge Advocate General (OTJAG), where his duties included providing legal advice to the Board, an appearance of impropriety could have been created if he had submitted his application to the Board as client.  He states that he was persuaded to overcome his reluctance after September 11, 2001.  He contends that the Army Regulations in effect at the time he was assigned to the Pentagon did not include OTJAG officers among those authorized to wear the ASIB.  Furthermore, he was not aware that the regulation governing the award of the ASIB had been changed to allow individuals assigned to the OTJAG to wear the ASIB until he attended an awards ceremony during his two week active duty training as a Reserve officer.  He now feels that the change in regulation was 
inequitable because it did not allow for the retroactive award of the ASIB to those individuals who previously worked in OTJAG prior to the regulation change in 1985.  In addition, he claims that he meets all the requirements to be awarded the AFRM and has submitted a request to the National Personnel Records Center, but has yet to receive a response.  In support of his application, he submits an extract of Army Regulation 600-8-22, paragraph 5-7 and paragraph 
8-36, thirteen Officers Evaluation Reports (DA Form 67-7), a Chronological Statement of Retirement Points (ARPC Form 249-2-E), and orders assigning him to the Retired Reserve. 

4.  The applicant’s request for award of the ASIB was addressed by separate correspondence to the applicant.  Therefore, this portion of the applicant’s request will not be discussed further in these Proceedings.

5.  The applicant’s military records show that he honorably served on active duty and as a member of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, and through intermittent periods of annual and active duty training in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) until 28 October 2001, at which time he was transferred to the Retired Reserve, in the rank of lieutenant colonel.

6.  The OERs submitted by the applicant show that he was assigned to the OTJAG, in the Pentagon, while he was serving on active duty as a captain, from October 1977 until August 1979.  In addition, he performed annual duty training as an IMA officer in the OTJAG, at the Pentagon, between 1980 and 1996.  

7.  A Chronological Statement of Retirement Points (ARPC Form 249-2-3), dated 10 August 2001, issued by the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM), St. Louis, Missouri, and submitted by the applicant, shows that he earned 50 retirement points for ten years in a period of twelve consecutive years.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) sets forth the Department of the Army criteria, policy and instructions concerning individual military awards, service medals and service ribbons, combat and special skill badges, tabs, unit decorations, trophies, and similar devices awarded in recognition of accomplishments.  Paragraph 5-7 provides guidance on awarding the AFRM.  It states, in pertinent part, that it is awarded for honorable and satisfactory service as a member or former member of one or more of the Reserve Components of the Armed Forces of the United States, for a period of 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that his military records should corrected to show award of the AFRM, and finds this claim has merit.

2. The evidence of record does confirm that the applicant earned 50 retirement points for a period of ten years, within a period of twelve consecutive years, which by regulation entitles him to the AFRM.  Therefore, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate to add this award to his record at this time.

3.  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 awarding the individual concerned the Armed Forces Reserve Medal.  

BOARD VOTE:  

__mdm__  __sac ___  __rd____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__  Samuel A. Crumpler__
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002073701	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/05/08	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	 GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 122	107.0076	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.