MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            3 December 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075029

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Ms. Charmane Collins		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 his discharge from the Louisiana Army National Guard (LAARNG) be voided and that he instead be transferred to the Retired Reserve.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was not properly informed of the benefits of transferring to the Retired Reserve after serving in the LAARNG for 20 years.  He further states that had he been given all of the appropriate information, he would have elected to transfer to the Retired Reserve instead of discharge in 1986.  He goes on to state that he did not discover the information until he attempted to obtain an identification card and was informed that he was ineligible. 

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

He enlisted in the LAARNG on 13 June 1966 and continued to serve through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 11 September 1985.

On 31 May 1986, the applicant submitted a request to be released from the Army National Guard, effective 31 June 1986.  He indicated that he would have completed 20 years of service on 16 June 1986, that his expiration of term of service (ETS) was 30 September 1986.  He cited as the basis for his request, that he had employment conflicts, that he was scheduled to attend training in his civilian profession during the period annual training would occur, and that his wife was scheduled to go to Colorado during the period in question as well, which would provide no adult supervision for their children.  

On 5 June 1986, his request was returned from his battalion headquarters without action.  The Assistant Adjutant advised the commander to advise the applicant to consider an option other than discharge, such as transfer to the inactive Army National Guard (IANG), especially since his service had not been verified.  The same assistant adjutant subsequently advised the commander that the applicant should be advised on the benefits of transferring to the Retired Reserve. 

Although the record is silent as to what occurred in regards to the applicant’s initial request for discharge after it was returned without action, his records do show that on 30 September 1986, he was honorably discharged from the IANG due to his ETS.  He had served 20 years, 3 months and 18 days of service for pay purposes

On 24 February 1987, the National Guard Bureau notified the applicant (20-year letter) that he had completed the required years of service to be eligible for Retired pay at age 60 (19 January 2005).  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification on 28 February 1987.  

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 that regulation relates to the removal of soldiers from 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. 

Army Regulation 135-178, in effect at the time, established the policies, standards, and procedures governing the administrative procedures governing the administrative separation of enlisted soldiers from the Reserve Components. Paragraph 1-3 states, in pertinent part, that orders discharging a soldier would not be revoked or the effective date changed after the effective date of discharge unless there was a manifest error or fraud.  After the effective date of discharge, orders could not be amended by the separation authority only to correct manifest errors such as the wrong character of service or correct administrative errors such as errors concerning rank, social security number, or misspelled name.

Due to recent Departmental changes (enclosed), certain benefits, such as commissary and post exchange privileges, accrue to Reservists with more than 20 years of qualifying service for retirement at age 60 and who have terminated their Reserve status.

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

1.  The applicant’s honorable discharge from the USAR was accomplished in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

2.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board; however, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.  The available evidence shows that the applicant submitted a request for discharge because of employments conflicts and that his request was returned to him and his commander for consideration of options other than discharge, at least until it was determined that he had sufficient time to warrant the issuance of a 20-year letter.  

3.  While the extent of his counseling is not present in the available records, it is reasonable to presume that he elected to be transferred to the IANG, since he was discharged from the IANG on his ETS. 

4.  It is also reasonable to presume, given his reasons for wanting to be discharged, that he would not have elected to be transferred to the Retired Reserve because he would have been subjected to recall at any time.  Accordingly, absent evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that he was informed of his options at the time and elected to be discharged. 
5.  Although his discharge will have no effect on his right to apply for Retired Pay at age 60 or his entitlement to benefits, his failure to elect transfer to the Retired Reserve vice discharge has allowed him to not be subject to recall for the past 16 years.

6.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

7.  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

___ja____  ___cc___  ___fe___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075029	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/12/03	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  333	135.0100/TRAN RET RES	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.