RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  3 February 2004
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003089516

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests reinstatement in an active status in the US Army Reserve (USAR), retroactive to 4 March 2002; issuance of orders awarding retirement points for a language training project, both retroactive and prospective; and promotion to colonel (COL/0-6).

2.  The applicant states that he should be reinstated in an active status, retroactive to 4 March 2002, issued orders awarding retirement points for his language training by the Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM), as detailed on his DA Form 1380s (Record of Individual Performance of Reserve Duty Training), and promotion to colonel.  He also states that AR-PERSCOM improperly discovered that he did not complete the required 50 points per year.  He further states that AR-PERSCOM had previously approved credit for language training several years later, and retroactively disallowed a legitimate foreign language training project allowed under Army Regulations.  His training was directly used on behalf of the Army while on active duty.  His improper discharge was the result of AR-PERSCOM's untimely, inconsistent, and illegitimate action that he attempted to correct through numerous channels of communication.  

3.  The applicant provides copies of: several DA Forms 330 (Language Proficiency Questionnaire); orders awarding Foreign Language Proficiency Pay (FLPP); several memorandums; and several documents from his military personnel file.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 22 September 1969, as an interrogator.  He served in Vietnam from 10 September 1970 to 18 June 1971 and attended the Defense Language Institute (DLI).  He was honorably released from active duty (AD) on 19 June 1971.  He was transferred to the Army Reserve. 

2.   The applicant's military records show he was appointed as a first lieutenant   (1LT/0-2) on 12 August 1982 in the Indiana Army National Guard (INARNG).  He was released from the INARNG and was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) on 7 July 1983, in the rank of 0-2.  

3.  The applicant served with the Army Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAGC) from 1983 to 1991.  He was qualified in several foreign languages by taking the Defense Language Proficiency Test (DPLT).  

4.  The applicant provided several copies of orders awarding him FLPP.  He was required to take and successfully complete DLPT in order to obtain administrative recertification annually to continue to receive his FLPP.

5.  In 1991, he served as an Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) with the JAGC Contract Appeals Division (CAD) and performed two weeks of annual training (AT) every year.

6.  On 29 December 1994, the applicant requested that he be approved for a USAR Foreign Language Training Project.  On 30 December 1994, the Chief, CAD strongly recommended approval to AR-PERSCOM. 

7.  He completed the Command and General Staff Officer Course (CGSOC) on 17 July 1996.  He was promoted to lieutenant colonel (LTC/0-5) with a date or rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 December 1999.

8.  On 19 February 2000, the applicant submitted a request to AR-PERSCOM for correction of his retirement points.  He indicated that he received no AD points for his retirement year ending (RYE) 27 September 1997.  He included documentation showing that he had accrued 14 additional AD points.

9.  On 17 September 2001, the applicant submitted a request to AR-PERSCOM concerning errors in his retirement points.  The areas of concern were errors in his inactive duty (ID) points carried over from his previous statement, failure to credit recent ID points, and failure to credit AD points. 

10.  On 22 January 2002, the applicant responded to AR-PERSCOM's letter dated 1 January 2002, concerning nonparticipation.  He stated that he had continued his full participation in the USAR each and every year since departing AD.   He also stated that he had written several times to AR-PERSCOM regarding correction of his retirement points.

11.  On 4 March 2002, the applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR Control Group, (IMA).

12.  On 16 March and 10 May 2002, the applicant wrote a letter to his Senator requesting assistance in resolving his improper discharge and failure to receive the proper retirement points.

13.  On 21 and 23 May 2002, the applicant submitted a request to AR-PERSCOM regarding his USAR status and retirement points.  He requested that AR-PERSCOM approve his language study points retroactive and restore him to an active status as an IMA.  He also provided documentation showing his proficiency in several languages and the benefits it has been to the US Army.   

14.  On 17 December 2002, the applicant was released from an IMA status and was transferred to the Retired Reserve due to nonparticipation.

15.  On 24 January 2003, the IMA Control Officer requested that the applicant be credited with 30 retirement points for unpaid AD.  He also stated that the applicant was an IMA to the CAD and enclosed copies of his DA Form 1380s listing his times of AD.  The applicant's DA Form 1380s showed that he had completed 30 4-hour periods of foreign language training.

16.  On 18 February 2003, the Assistant Judge Advocate General (JAG) prepared a memorandum for AR-PERSCOM requesting assistance in reinstating the applicant as an IMA.  He stated that the applicant had received points for training for many years before their office had decided he was not entitled to those points.  As a result, the applicant was discharged, which was later revoked.  He was assigned to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) and later transferred to the Retired Reserve.  The applicant would like to continue his service as an IMA officer and requested assistance in reinstatement.

17.  On 11 March 2003, the Director, Officer Personnel Management, AR-PERSCOM informed the Assistant JAG that the applicant failed to earn 50 points in a retirement year as required by regulation.  Upon notification, the applicant submitted points for foreign language training.  His regional support team (RST) coordinated with the proponents in this command.   It was determined that his language training did not qualify for additional retirement points under Army Regulation 145-185 unless enrolled in a school course.  While this command had previously accepted such points for retirement credit, their recent discovery of this limitation prevented them from accepting points now.  The applicant was required to be separated under regulation. The applicant received a letter notifying him that he had not earned points and was subject to separation because his points were not accepted.  He was afforded the opportunity to request a one-time waiver to maintain his active status but failed to do so.  Recent changes to regulatory guidance have resulted in transfer to the Retired Reserve or discharge.  The applicant's discharge was revoked and orders transferring the applicant to the Retired Reserve were published.  He was informed to apply to this Board for relief.

18.  On 7 April 2003, the applicant requested assistance from the CAD regarding his case.  On 16 April 2003, the CAD responded requesting favorable consideration of the applicant's case.  

19.  On 12 June 2003, the applicant prepared a supplemental statement to this Board regarding his case.  He requested that the Board grant summary judgement in favor of his case and that relief be granted.  

20.  The applicant provided a copy of his Summary of Retirement Points which shows he had completed 20 years of qualifying service for retirement purposes.
It also shows that the applicant failed to earn 50 points during his RYE of 27 September 2001.

21.  In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was provided by the 
99st RST.  The 99th RST stated that the applicant was discharged for failing to earn 50 points in a retirement year as required by regulation.  He was notified that he had not earned the required points for his foreign language training.  The 99th RST determined that his foreign language training could not earn retirement points under Army Regulation 140-185, unless, he enrolled in a school course, passed a proficiency test, and received a certificate. He would only be entitled to 10 points for the course.  The applicant was not enrolled in a school course.  According to regulation, the applicant was required to be discharged.  He received a letter notifying him that he had not earned the required points and was subject to separation, because his language points were not accepted and could have requested a one-time exception and maintained his active status in the IMA program.  However, a request for exception was never received; therefore, the applicant was separated.  The 99th RST also stated that recent changes in regulatory guidance in separations have resulted in transferring officers to the Retired Reserve rather than discharging them.  However, their determination remains unchanged.  

22.  The applicant was provided a copy of this opinion for possible comment prior to consideration of his case. 

23.  In his rebuttal, the applicant stated that AR-PERSCOM failed to read and analyze regulations in question to determine what were acceptable methods for obtaining Reserve retirement points.  According to regulation, attendance at a DLI training courses was only one method of obtaining points.  An alternate method is a training project that is useful to the Army and the unit, and approved by the unit.  AR-PERSCOM never considered whether foreign language training could constitute an approved training project.  However, after approving foreign language projects for years, it arbitrarily decided that foreign language training would not possibly be a training project acceptable for points under Army Regulation 140-1, and arbitrarily discharged him.  Subsequently, after initiation of a Congressional inquiry, AR-PERSCOM researched the matter.  It was determined that he had to attend resident DLI in order to attain points, which he felt was untrue.  This action reflects the failure of AR-PERSCOM to understand the regulation in question and allow more than one method of obtaining points. 

24.  He also states that AR-PERSCOM used faulty methodology in making its determination.  The 99th RST and DLI determined that language training could not earn retirement points under Army Regulation 140-185 unless, enrolled in a school course, passed a proficiency test, and received a certificate.  AR-PERSCOM prior submissions show that they never contacted DLI's headquarters in California to obtain an official opinion.  He later contacted DLI and obtained an official opinion.  The opinion stated that they had reviewed his case and the DLI Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) supports the concept of self-study of foreign languages, by previous graduates of DLI, and judges it to be an acceptable training project under Army Regulations for Reserve points in an unpaid status.  DLIFLC recommended that these standards be maintained in the self-study concept and that currency of Reserve language skills was important to our National Security.  

25.  He further states that the official opinion of DLI totally undercuts the rationale and methodology of AR-PERSCOM in making its determination.  It is now apparent that the self study of foreign languages was an acceptable training project under regulation and AR-PERSCOM was arbitrary and capricious in failing to issue points based on this training project and subsequently issued a discharge.  AR-PERSCOM did not consider the supplement, dated 12 June 2003 in their opinion.  AR-PERSCOM stated that only a maximum of 10 points could be awarded for DLI school training, which was a new argument advanced by DLI that was never mentioned in the past.  

26.  He was informed in writing that he was being considered for discharge based on nonparticipation.  He responded by submitting the language training points approved by his unit and was discharged.  AR-PERSCOM considered his issue after he initiated a Congressional inquiry.  AR-PERSCOM replied informing him that they needed documentation authorizing language study for points (even though points were previously approved for years) and that DLI had stated that he needed to pass a proficiency test and receive a certificate before awarding points.  He provided documentation to AR-PERSCOM who replied to a separate inquiry making no   mention of the documentation.  He resubmitted his documentation and telephoned       AR-PERSCOM; however, they never returned his calls.  AR-PERSCOM now advances a new argument that, even if he had DLI schooling, he could have only received a maximum of 10 points.  

27.  He goes on to state that this argument had no basis in the Army Regulation and did not address the issue of the validity of language training projects for points under the regulation.  AR-PERSCOM states that they informed him that he could have requested a one-time exception and maintained his active status in the Reserve, which shows that this opportunity was illusory.  He was informed that he was being

considered for discharge based on nonparticipation with an opportunity for a one-time waiver if he actually had not been participating sufficiently to maintain current status in the USAR.  He responded by submitting his language training points approved by his unit and was discharged.  If AR-PERSCOM had informed him that they would not consider his position, he would have applied for the one-time waiver pending resolution of language training points.  Issuance of his discharge precluded this approach.  

28.  Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of Reserve officers.  The regulation provides that mandatory selection boards will be convened each year to consider Reserve Component officers in an active status for promotion to colonel.  The regulation provides that in order to be qualified for promotion to colonel an individual must have completed the CGSOC and 5 years of time in grade (TIG) as a lieutenant colonel (LTC/0-5) on or before the convening date of the respective promotion board.

29.  Army Regulation 140-1 prescribes policy of the US Army Reserve (USAR) mission, its organization, and training.  Paragraph 3-27 pertains to training projects.  It states that Ready Reserve soldiers and eligible Standby Reserve soldiers, who cannot take part in or complete Reserve training, may be assigned training projects with their consent.  Training projects may also be assigned to groups.  It may be in one or more general areas:  (1) Military necessity and value to the proponent; (2) Military training value to the soldier; (3) Related to National Defense, military or civil, that would benefit the Department of Defense (DOD), Department of the Army (DA), or a subordinate or related agency; and (4) Technical studies for which a military need exists.  Heads of Headquarters, DA agencies and major command (MACOM) commanders may initiate and prepare training projects to be completed by groups or individual soldiers.  Individual soldiers may initiate requests for projects by sending outlines of their projects to AR-PERSCOM.  AR-PERSCOM will determine when an IRR soldier is eligible for training projects.  Once approved the soldier will be informed.  Commanders of agencies and commands for whom projects are completed will determine the number of retirement point credits and will ensure that these credits are awarded to the soldier.  

30.  Army Regulation 140-185 (Training and Retirement Point Credits and Unit Level Strength Accounting Records) and the Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1215.7 (Service Credit for Reserve Retirement), dated 1 March 2001, states, in pertinent part, the maximum number of Reserve retirement points that can be credited each year (cap rule) for the total of Inactive Duty for Training (IDT) points, plus extension course points, plus membership points.  Prior to 23 September 1996, the retirement point cap rule was 60 points per year and after 23 September 1996 through 30 October 2000, the retirement points cap rule was 75 points per year.  As of 31 October 2000 to present, the retirement points cap rule is 90 points per year.  It also states that a Reserve Component soldier must earn 50 retirement points in a 12 month period for the year to be creditable for retired pay at age 60.

31.  The same regulation prescribes the types of training and activities for which retirement points are authorized.  It discusses the procedures for recording retirement point credits and training for USAR soldiers.  It states, in pertinent part, that the maximum for IDT and membership is 60 points.  Annual or Terminal Statement of Retirement Points will report all points earned.  Individuals will be awarded 15 membership points for each year in an active status.  It further states that personnel on AD, active duty training (ADT), inactive duty for training (IADT), involuntary ADT, or AT are awarded 1 point for each calendar day they serve in one of these categories and may not be awarded additional points for other activities while in such status.  The following rules apply:  (1) One point will be awarded for each scheduled 4-hour period of IDT with a maximum of 2 points in 1 calendar day; (2) One point for each 2-hour or greater period with a maximum of 1 point in 1 calendar day; and (3) One point for each 2-hour or greater period under the two/eight-hour rule.  

32.  Army Regulation 140-10, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the assignment, attachment, detail, and transfer of USAR soldiers.  Chapter 7 of the regulation relates to the removal of soldiers from an active status and states, in pertinent part, that soldiers removed from an active status will be discharged or, if qualified and if they so request, will be transferred to the Retired Reserve.

33.  Paragraph 6-4 of Army Regulation 140-10 pertains to transfer from the Retired Reserve.  The criteria for transfer from the Retired Reserve to the Ready Reserve is based on the soldiers' status:  (a) transfer is not authorized for soldiers receiving retired pay unless the Secretary of the Army makes a special finding that their services are indispensable; (b) a soldier who is not receiving retired pay and otherwise qualified may be transferred to the IRR, or to an appropriate troop program unit (TPU) or Individual Mobilization Augmentation (IMA) position vacancy.  The transfer must be voluntary based on the soldier's request; and (c) all Retired Reserve members who were removed from active status by board action or operation of law are ineligible for transfer to the Ready Reserve. 

34.  Paragraph 7-3.1 of the regulation states that a member who has accrued 20 years of qualifying service for retired pay is required to attain 50 points annually to be retained in an active status.  Members who fail to attain 50 points by the anniversary of their retirement year ending (RYE) date will be removed from an active status.

35.  Paragraph 7-12, of the regulation states that there are exceptions to specific reasons for removal from an active status.  Failure to earn the required 50 retirement points may be authorized by the area commander (for soldiers assigned to a TPU) or by the Commander, AR-PERSCOM.  USAR soldiers must request a waiver and submit documentation to show that nonparticipation was due to circumstances beyond their control.  Such circumstances are defined as those of a personal or temporary nature such as illness or civilian employment.  A waiver of nonparticipation may be granted only on a one-time basis for failure to earn the required 50 points during a retirement year.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant attended DLI, was qualified in several foreign languages by taking the DPLT, and was awarded FLPP.  The applicant requested that he be approved for a USAR Foreign Language Training Project that was recommended for approval by the CAD to AR-PERSCOM.  However, there is no evidence to show that AR-PERSCOM fully approved his request.

2.  The applicant submitted a request to AR-PERSCOM concerning errors in his retirement points and responded to AR-PERSCOM's letter concerning nonparticipation. He was later discharged from the USAR Control Group (IMA).

3.  The applicant attempted to correct his retirement points through numerous channels of communication.  He provided documentation, requested that his language study points be approved, and that he be restored to an active status.  However, he was placed in the Retired Reserve due to nonparticipation.   

4.  The applicant was informed by AR-PERSCOM that he had failed to earn 50 points in a retirement year as required by regulation.  He was also informed that he had received points for many years before and that he was later not entitled to those points for language training.  It was determined that his language training did not qualify for additional retirement points according to regulation unless enrolled in a school course. It was noted that points were previously accepted for retirement credit; however, limitations now prevented AR-PERSCOM from accepting those points.  The applicant was required to be separated by regulation.   

5.  The applicant was notified and afforded the opportunity to request a one-time waiver to maintain an active status.  However, there is no evidence in the applicant's records to show that he requested a one-time waiver of his removal based on his circumstances.  He was properly placed in the Retired Reserve.

6.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was promoted to lieutenant colonel effective 1 December 1999.  The regulation states that an individual must complete the CGSOC and have 5 years TIG as an LTC/0-5 on or before the convening date of the respective promotion board.  The applicant was transferred to the Retired Reserve effective 17 December 2002, with 3 years TIG, due to nonparticipation.  Therefore, he is not entitled to consideration for promotion to colonel. 

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__sc___  ___rs____  ___cg___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

		____Samuel A. Crumpler____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003089516	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20040203	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20021217	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR  140-10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	192/310	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.