BOARD DATE: 12 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150018609 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____x____ ____x____ ___x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 12 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150018609 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _____________x____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. BOARD DATE: 12 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150018609 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant, in effect, requests correction of her records to show she was retained in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) past her mandatory removal date (MRD) of 31 October 2015. 2. The applicant states she received an unjust separation from the USAR. She requested an extension of her MRD so she could obtain 20 qualifying years for retirement. The U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) denied her request because her military occupational specialty (MOS) was overstrength. She also applied for a change in her area of concentration (AOC) to AOC 38G (Civil Affairs). This request was approved prior to her MRD. a. She states she had 17.5 years of service with a stellar career. The decision to deny her an extension of her MRD has ethical ramifications as well as financial. The Army’s financial impact is the cost of training new talent vice using current "experts" (like herself). By this decision she has lost pension and associated retirement benefits. b. She states the decision to deny her an MRD extension is not strategically aligned with the HRC stated mission, vision and values. It also is counter to the publication Talent Management Concept of Operations for Force 2025 and Beyond published by the United States Army Combined Arms Center in September 2015. This publication “discuss[es] the need for agile and adaptable workforces that can work in ambiguity and chaos due to the changing environment and shrinking resources." It also is not aligned with the publication titled Human Resources White Paper published by the United States Army Combined Arms Center on 9 October 2014 concerning human resources management best practices. c. She is a valuable asset to the Reserve because her dual citizen career and Army experience allows her to successfully fill several MOSs (or AOCs). As a civilian, her position responsibilities involved strategic communications and setting systems in place across organizations. 3. The applicant provides: * MRD extension packet * MRD disapproval memorandum * AOC 38G acceptance letter * Inspector General (IG) request for assistance * USAHRC IG response * 38G brief * separation orders * email extracts concerning her MRD with USAHRC * civilian résumé * certificates of appreciation (military and civilian) * publication titled Talent Management Concept of Operations for Force 2025 and Beyond, 43 pages * publication titled Human Resources White Paper, 24 pages * other articles concerning human resources management and recruiting * power point presentation titled Civil Affairs/Functional Specialty Overview for the USAR, undated CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's records show she was born in October 1955. She was appointed as a commissioned officer in the USAR in the rank of first lieutenant, pay grade O-2, on 10 March 1998 executing an oath of office on that date. Her letter of appointment as a Reserve commissioned officer shows she was granted an age and age in grade waiver. At the time of her appointment she was age 42. She was appointed an officer in the Medical Specialty Corps in AOC 65C (Dietitian). She also received constructive service credit which was not based on prior service and was not valid for an adjustment to her basic pay entry date. 2. The applicant was promoted to lieutenant colonel in the USAR with an effective date of rank and date of rank of 10 January 2014. 3. On 27 October 2014 by email, the applicant initiated communication with her USAR assignment officer at HRC concerning how and where to submit a request to extend her MRD. She subsequently was provided guidance including the fact that AOC 65C was overstrength and she should submit her request as soon as possible. 4. On 26 February 2015 the applicant submitted a written request for an extension to her MRD to HRC. (Her MRD was 31 October 2015 based on attaining age 60.) She specifically requested her MRD be extended to 31 October 2018 which would enable her to complete 20 years of service for retirement. HRC Form 4109 (Request for Extension of MRD) shows she acknowledged she may be removed before becoming eligible for retired pay and may be unable to complete 20 years of qualifying service for retired pay. 5. On 23 June 2015 the Deputy Commanding General (DCG), HRC, disapproved the applicant's MRD extension request citing it was not in the best interest of the Army to extend her MRD. He confirmed her MRD remained 31 October 2015. 6. On 27 July 2015 HRC issued Orders D 07-514416 honorably discharging her from the USAR effective 31 October 2015. 7. On 18 August 2015 after consulting with her assignment manager and the personnel actions branch at HRC by email, the applicant resubmitted a request for an age extension of her MRD to HRC so she could complete mission critical projects and obtain 20 years of commissioned service. In a separate memorandum she cited she was working on a project for the Army Surgeon General's Office and the Public Health Command. She currently was in an individual mobilization augmentee position within the Army Medical Department (AMEDD). 8. On 13 October 2015 the applicant requested the HRC IG review her MRD age extension process/timeline and subsequent decision. Additionally, she requested they provide some answers to the questions shown on the DA Form 1559 (Inspector General Action Request), and assist with mediating a problem solving solution, so that she would be able to continue to serve in the Army and obtain 20 years of (qualifying) service (for retirement). 9. A letter from United States Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, Fort Bragg, NC, dated 26 October 2015, shows the applicant was selected to the Military Government (38G (Civil Affairs)) AOC based on her civilian educational and professional work experience. This letter is signed by the school commandant. 10. On 26 October 2015 the HRC IG responded to the applicant's request for assistance. The assistant IG noted: a. the AOC 65C was overstrength in the applicant's current grade and in the grade above. The Health Services Branch recommended approval, but to extend an MRD the USAHRC Commanding General must approve it. The deputy commanding general with signature authority, disapproved the request. b. each request for extension is reviewed individually, based on AOC and [personnel] strength. There is no system to identify and justify each denial. c. HRC received the applicant's request for extension on 20 April 2015 and began its processing on 25 April 2015. The DCG denied the request based on overstrength of the AOC on 23 June 2015. d. there is no board for this request. The documentation is reviewed electronically and then sent to the DCG/commanding general for signature. e. the applicant's request did not meet the criteria for MRD extension. Had her request to transfer to a shortage military occupational specialty been previously approved, there may have been a possibility for an MRD extension. 11. On 31 October 2015 the applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR as per her discharge orders. 12. The applicant's Board application contains email messages spanning the period October 2014 to October 2015 showing she was in constant communication with HRC and the IG office. The emails explain the applicant was entitled to submit her MRD age extension packet; however, her current MOS (65C) was overstrength and it would more than likely be denied. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 135-101 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve – Appointment of Reserve Commissioned Officers for Assignment to AMEDD Branches) prescribes policy, procedures, and eligibility criteria for appointment in the Reserve Components of the Army in the six branches of the AMEDD. The maximum age limitation for entry as a first lieutenant in an AMEDD branch is age 38. 2. Army Regulation 140-10 (Assignments, Attachments, Details, and Transfers) prescribes policies, responsibilities, and procedures to assign, attach, detail, remove, or transfer USAR Soldiers. Soldiers not sooner removed for another reason will be removed when they reach the maximum age with the removal date shown as the last day of the month in which they reach the maximum age. The maximum age for field and company grade officers is age 60. Paragraph 7-14 prescribes the policy governing exceptions to removal for length of service or age. a. The regulation authorizes the retention of Reserve Component officers in an active status in certain AMEDD AOCs until age 68. b. Subject to the following guidance, an officer who meets the applicability criteria may be retained beyond his or her MRD for length of service (removal rule 1) and age (removal rule 2). The Commander, USAHRC operating on behalf of Headquarters, Department of the Army, Deputy Chief of Staff (DCS), G–1, is the approval authority for retention under this section. (1) Retention must be in the best interest of the Army. (2) The specialty of the officer requesting retention must be short in Total Army mobilization requirements and, for troop program unit (TPU) officers, the specialty must be short of Total Army-wide TPU requirements. The Commander, USAHRC is responsible for determining which specialties meet this retention criteria using Mobilization Personnel Structure and Composition System data for mobilization requirements and the most recent Total Army or TPU strength data, as appropriate. A TPU officer who does not possess a critical AOC which is short of Total Army-wide TPU requirements may apply for transfer to the IRR with concurrent retention as an IRR member. c. Requests for retention must arrive at USAHRC not later than 120 days before the officer's scheduled removal date. A request received late may provide the basis for denial of the request. 3. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 14509 (Separation at age 62: reserve officers in grades below brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half)) states each reserve officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps who is in an active status or on an inactive-status list and who reaches the maximum age specified in section 14509 [age 62], 14510 [age 62 brigadier general], 14511 [age 64 major general], or 14512 [age 66 "certain general officers"] of this title for the officer's grade or position shall (unless the officer is sooner separated or the officer's separation is deferred or the officer is continued in an active status under another provision of law) not later than the last day of the month in which the officer reaches that maximum age: (1) be transferred to the Retired Reserve if the officer is qualified for such transfer and does not request (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned) not to be transferred to the Retired Reserve; or (2) be discharged from the officer's reserve appointment if the officer is not qualified for transfer to the Retired Reserve or has requested (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned) not to be so transferred. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's letter of appointment as a Reserve commissioned officer shows she received an age and age in grade waiver. At the time of her appointment in AMEDD AOC 65C, she was age 42. The regulatory guidance shows the maximum age for entry into an AMEDD branch is age 38 for first lieutenants. Upon entry, her MRD was established as October 2015 (60th birthdate). 2. She appears to have submitted her MRD extension application in a timely manner as per regulatory guidance. While the HRC IG's office stated her branch supported her retention, the deciding official denied her request based on the best interests of the Army. It appears her AOC 65C was overstrength in the applicant's current grade and in the grade above. 3. Though she was selected for transfer to AOC 38C by the appropriate official, her request to change her AOC was approved after she received the MRD denial memorandum. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150018609 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150018609 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2