MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           11 July 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034774

	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. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. John Saputo		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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:  In effect, that her discharge from the USAR be voided and that it be shown that she remained assigned to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) from 25 April 1995 to the present.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she was well aware that she had to remain assigned to the Ready Reserve to maintain entitlement to her annual Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) payments.  She also prized her commission and would never had consented to any action which would result in the loss of it.  She explains that the combination of early term pregnancy with her 4th child, with accompanying sickness; her duties as newly elected president of the Fort Bliss Officers’ Wives’ Club; her work on a prospectus for her thesis for her masters degree; and her status as head of household with her husband being away on temporary duty on a special mission; all contributed to her decision to request reassignment from her Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) position.  When she conveyed her desire to the Army Reserve Personnel Command, she was told to write a letter requesting reassignment, which she did.  She never intended the letter to constitute her request for discharge from the USAR.  

In support of her application she submits copies of extracts of her military records, a letter dated 25 February 1997 in which she informed the Defense Finance and Accounting Service of her latest change of address, and a letter from her military physician dated 6 December 1999 in which it was stated that the applicant is experiencing “multiple and significantly disabling medical problems” and had been experiencing those problems since 1994.

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

She was commissioned and entered on active duty on 6 August 1984.  She was awarded the area of concentration of military intelligence and was promoted to the rank of captain.  She was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the IRR on 15 April 1993, at her own request, with VSI.

She accepted assignment to an IMA position and was discharged from the USAR on 25 April 1995.  Her records do not contain her request for discharge.

Army Regulation 40-501 provides for ordering reservists to physical examinations when their medical qualification for retention is in question.  

Army Regulation 135-175, paragraph 4-4, provides for removing an officer from an active status by either discharge or transfer to the Retired Reserve.  One of the reasons cited for mandatory removal from an active status is medical unfitness.

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.  In the absence of the letter which was accepted as the applicant’s resignation, the Board must make the presumption of regularity, that the letter she submitted did in fact constitute her resignation.

2.  The applicant’s statement that she hadn’t meant her letter to be a request for discharge has been considered by the Board.  But such a claim cannot be proven or disproven.

3.  However, if the Board recommended that the applicant’s discharge be revoked, the Board would also have to recommend that the applicant be reassigned to the IRR effective the date of her current discharge.  The IRR is, as its name implies, a Ready Reserve organization.  That means the individuals assigned to the IRR are subject to mobilization and deployment.

4.  The letter submitted by the applicant’s military physician brings serious question to the applicant’s medical fitness, and the fact that she is married to an active duty officer and has four children bring into question her ability to mobilize and deploy in the event of a national emergency or war if she is in fact medically qualified.  The Board cannot, in good conscience, recommend a correction of military records which would place an officer of questionable medical fitness and of questionable ability to mobilize back in a Ready Reserve status.

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

_rjw_____  __js ____  ___rwa__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034774	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
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.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.