MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            6 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030764

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		                          Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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:  That she be reinstated on active duty in the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) program in pay grade E-7 and that her reentry (RE) code of RE-3 be changed or upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  She states that she was a top recruiter who was never recognized by her command for her accomplishments and, in effect, did not deserve her involuntary release from active duty.  She describes the hardships she and her family endured so she could become a successful recruiter, and the lack of compassion her command had for her problems.  Her assignment of an RE-3 code when she was released from active duty precludes her from enlisting for 3 years, so even if she is given a waiver to reenlist after the 2-year period she will probably be required to enlist as a private.  Her premature release from active duty also resulted in her not receiving her promotion to pay grade E-7 as she had been selected to receive.  She contends that she should have been given other duties, as other AGR recruiters have received in similar situations, and not released from active duty.  She points out while this was her first AGR tour, she had prior service in the Regular Army and USAR service not on extended active duty.

In support of her application she submits documents showing her outstanding achievements as a recruiter.  She also submits a letter from a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) psychiatrist dated 11 October 1997 who stated that the applicant had been under his care for 3 months for major depressive episode, single episode, severe, without psychotic features.  The psychiatrist opined that the applicant’s depression was triggered by the work pressure directly related to recruiting duty and that her depression would not remit should she remain under the stress of recruiting duties.  He therefore recommended that the applicant be relieved from recruiting duty and reassigned to more traditional military duties, duties which he believed the applicant could well perform.

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

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 May 1987, was promoted to pay grade E-5, and was honorably released from active duty at the expiration of her term of service on 19 May 1993.

She entered on active duty in the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) program on 10 April 1996, and performed duties as a recruiter

On 30 May 1998 the Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) approved a request that the applicant be relieved from recruiting duty and directed that she be involuntarily released from active duty not later than 90 days from the date of that notification.

Accordingly, she was honorably released from active duty on 1 July 1998 by reason of non-retention on active duty.  She was assigned a code of RE-3.

Army Regulation 135-18 and National Guard Regulation 600-5 govern implementation of the AGR program.  Essentially, the program provides for selected Army Reserve (USAR) and ANG personnel to be voluntarily called to active duty for special projects, programs or mission essential tasks.  Periods of active duty may vary from 1 to 3 years, with provisions for voluntary extension of the period of active duty beyond the initial call. 

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-16a(2), states that AGR soldiers serving on an initial tour as recruiters may be involuntarily released from active duty when a determination has been made that they are unqualified, ineffective, or unsuitable for continued recruiting duty, and that early release is in the best interest of the Government.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant was brought on active duty to be a recruiter.  When it was determined that she was unable to perform in that capacity, the sole reason for her being on active duty ceased to exist.

2.  While it is understandable that the applicant would want to be transferred to a non-recruiting duty, and therefore be retained on active duty, due to the then drawdown of the force it is doubtful whether any such positions existed.  Even if such positions existed, to transfer her to one would be tantamount to bypassing the normal selection procedures for those positions.  That’s why provisions exist in Army regulations to involuntarily release an AGR recruiter from active duty if he or she doesn’t satisfactorily perform as a recruiter.

3.  The applicant has charged that her command did not recognize her for her hard work, that it was not sympathetic towards her problems, and she did not deserve the treatment she received from the Army.  The Board does not accept these allegations as germane to the issue in question, her involuntary release from active duty.  The applicant herself requested release from recruiting duties, at the advice of a psychiatrist.  When her request was granted, it necessitated her involuntary release from active duty.  She was, at that point, “unqualified, ineffective, or unsuitable for continued recruiting duty.”

4.  Since the Board considers the applicant’s separation proper and just, there is no reason to consider her request to change her RE code.  The 2-year moratorium on enlisting after a soldier has been given an RE code which requires a waiver was established to allow the soldier to overcome whatever problem caused his or her separation.  In the applicant’s case, she was separated because she could not handle the stress of recruiting duty.  If she were to be allowed to immediately reenlist without assurances that her stress related depression was under control, the Army would have no assurance that she would be able to function if she were to be placed in another high stress situation, such as being deployed in a war or national emergency.

5.  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

__cmf ___  ___emw_  ___jpi ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030764	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000706	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.