PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           7 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999032387

	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. W . W. Osborn, Jr. 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Member	
	Mr. James P. Stueve		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 reconsideration of his previous request to correct his records by restoring him to active duty in pay grade E-6, at least, permitting him to reenlist in pay grade E-6.  He also requests full back pay and allowances and credit for time served from September 1992 until 1999.  Additionally, he requests payment of Overseas Extension Incentive Program (OEIP) benefits through 
26 September 1992.
 
3.  The applicant states that he should be restored to duty and authorized back pay.  He would have served from September 1992 until the present had he not been improperly barred from re-enlisting.  He reports that his company commander would not reconstruct his promotion package.  He argues that his high promotion board scores indicate that he, undoubtedly, would have been promoted to pay grade E-6 by 26 September 1992.  He believes the Board has been furnished faulty advisory opinions and that it should have aggressively investigated his previous allegations.  He contends that the Army did not follow its own regulations.  He reports that his promotion package disappeared from 1991 to 1999 and demands to know where it was. He also contends that, since the Board extended his enlistment, his OEIP benefits should have been extended as well.    

4.  The applicant’s submissions are new arguments that require Board consideration.

5.  The record of Proceedings reflecting the Board’s 25 January 1995 and 
16 June 1999 reviews of his case are incorporated herein as if wholly set forth.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was entitled to payment under the OEIP benefits until the end of the period of service.  The failure of the 1999 Board to authorize this payment for the extension of service until September 1992 was inadvertent.

2.  The applicant earned leave during the authorized extension.  Accounting data is not available to determine if he had previously been paid for accrued leave.  However, subject to the 60-day limitation, he should be paid for that leave.

3.  The applicant’s assertion that he would have attained pay grade E-6 by 
26 September 1992 is simply speculation.  The Board notes the 1 July 1991 date of rank, the 5-month time in grade requirement, and the fact that he would have had only 9 months to appear before a local promotion selection board and actually achieve promotion to pay grade E-6 and does not concur with his assessment.

4.  Furthermore, the reported refusal on the part of the company commander to reconstruct the promotion package suggests that the commander would have initiated a local bar to reenlistment had he not been convinced that the control point precluded the applicant’s reenlistment. 

5.  The Board does not normally investigate cases.  It decides whether an error or an injustice has occurred based upon the evidence of record and that furnished by the applicant.  

6.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, correcting the applicant’s records as recommended below would correct an error. 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing:

	a.  that the individual concerned was entitled to receive OIEP benefits through 26 September 1992; and

	b.  that, subject to the 60-day limit, he was entitled to be reimbursed for accrued leave for the period from 9 July 1991 to 26 September 1992.  

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
              
BOARD VOTE:

__MKP__  __ESC__  __JPS___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Margaret K. Patterson______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999032387	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000607	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	MODIFY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	121.02	
2.	128.14	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.