MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           13 February 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002077227

	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 V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		Member	
	Mr. Robert J. Osborn		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 authorized an antedated reenlistment.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant provides the board with chronological accounts of the events which led to her not reenlisting prior to the expiration of her term of service (ETS), and of her unsuccessful efforts to have an antedated reenlistment authorized to prevent her from having a break in service.  In brief, she states that when she was promoted to pay grade E-5, she was reassigned to another unit which was further from her home than her original unit, and which was staffed with personnel whom she didn't like as much as the people from her original unit.  In February 2000, she was told by her first sergeant that she was up for reenlistment since she was close to her ETS, and she needed to talk to the unit's retention noncommissioned officer (NCO).  The applicant states she talked to the retention NCO and explained her situation.  The retention NCO stated that she was new and didn’t know what to do, but she would get back to the applicant to tell her what options she had.  Subsequent to that conversation, one month her unit was in the field, another month she did not attend her unit's training assembly, and she was unsuccessful in contacting the unit's retention NCO by phone.  In May 2000, she had reached her ETS, having served the years of service agreed upon on her reenlistment contract, and was subsequently discharged.

In May 2001, when she did not receive her yearly Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) payment, she contacted the Army Reserve Personnel Command 
(AR-PERSCOM).  The AR-PERSCOM informed her that her VSI had been terminated because she had been discharged at her ETS, and that she would have to execute an antedated reenlistment in order to reinstate her VSI.  She then details all of the people she contacted and what transpired with those people in her quest to obtain authority to execute an antedated reenlistment.

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

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 July 1986, was awarded the military occupational specialty of administrative specialist, and was promoted to pay grade E-4.

On 31 May 1994, the applicant was honorably released from active duty, at her own request, and transferred to the Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement), with a VSI payment of $3,028.68 a year for 14 years.

On 23 September 1998, the applicant accepted assignment to a USAR unit.

On 10 January 2000, the applicant was promoted to pay grade E-5 and reassigned to a new unit (when a reservist is promoted, he or she is transferred to the unit which had the position vacancy the reservist was promoted to fill).

On 6 February 2000, the applicant failed the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).  The applicant was counseled on the consequences of her failure, and she stated that the APFT was supposed to be practice for her, not record.

On 8 June 2000, the applicant was honorably discharged due to her completing her term of service.  Her discharge orders contained the annotation “Soldier was held beyond normal discharge date through no fault of the soldier.”

On 17 July 2001, the applicant’s former unit submitted a request to antedate an enlistment contract for the applicant in order for her to maintain her VSI payments.  The RSG stated that the applicant was unable to reenlist prior to her ETS due to reasons beyond her control.

On 19 July 2001, the applicant submitted a request to execute an antedated reenlistment.  In that request she stated that she was unaware that her ETS was for the Individual Ready Reserve (USAR Control Group, or IRR) and not for the active reserve (unit).  She continues that she did not know that she had to reenlist every 6 years to maintain her VSI.

On 2 April 2002, the applicant’s former Regional Support Group (RSG) submitted a request to antedate an enlistment contract for the applicant in order for her to maintain her VSI payments.  The RSG stated that the applicant was unable to reenlist prior to her ETS due to reasons beyond her control.

On 5 April 2002, the applicant’s former unit (prior to her promotion) sent an 
e-mail to the RSG.  In that e-mail it was stated that the applicant had a suspension of favorable personnel actions imposed against her due to APFT failure.  As such, she was unable to reenlist.

On 5 April 2002, the applicant’s unit retention NCO responded to an inquiry concerning the applicant from the 81st Army Reserve Command (ARCOM) retention NCO.  In that response, the unit retention NCO stated that the applicant was transferred out of her unit while she was within her 90-day window to reenlist.  The retention NCO continued that she counseled the applicant at that time, but the applicant stated that she was not interested in extending her enlistment or reenlisting.  The following month she saw the applicant and her new first sergeant and informed them that the applicant was in her reenlistment window and needed to start the reenlistment process.  Approximately a year later the applicant called her (the retention NCO) and informed her that she had received a phone call from the Army Reserve Personnel Command 
(AR-PERSCOM) informing her that she would not receive any more VSI payments since she was no longer assigned to a USAR unit or the IRR.  The retention NCO then details what actions were then taken to obtain authority to allow the applicant to execute an antedated reenlistment.

On 6 May 2002, the RSC sent a memorandum to the AR-PERSCOM.  In that memorandum it was stated that the applicant knew she had to remain in a unit or in the IRR to continue receiving VSI payments.  Despite that knowledge, she informed the retention NCO that she was not interested in reenlisting prior to her ETS.  The RSC concluded that the applicant was discharged per her request after she declined continued USAR service.

On 26 June 2002, the AR-PERSCOM denied the applicant’s request for an antedated reenlistment.

Army Regulation 600-8-2, paragraph 1–15, Processing exceptions, states that flags for APFT failure block promotion, reenlistment, and extension only.

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.  There is convincing evidence to show that the applicant was informed that her ETS was imminent and was provided an opportunity to reenlist.  There is also convincing evidence that the applicant stated that she did not want to reenlist at that time.

2.  As such, the Board agrees with the RSC that the applicant was discharged per her own request after she declined continued USAR service.  The fact that she did not request an antedated reenlistment until over a year had passed from the date of her discharge reinforces this conclusion.

3.  The Board must now consider the applicant’s statement that she did not know she had to reenlist to remain in the IRR.  In this regard, it would have to be assumed that an administrative specialist with almost 8 years of active service would know that she had to reenlist to retain her military status, regardless of whether it was with assignment to the IRR or to a unit.  As such, the Board does not accept this argument.

4.  However, whether or not the applicant meant to reenlist or believed she did not have to reenlist is not relevant.  She had failed an APFT and was flagged (had a suspension of favorable personnel actions imposed against her).  The applicant could not have reenlisted even if she had wanted to do so.  In this vein, while the applicant has stated that the APFT she failed was not to be a record APFT, she has not submitted any evidence to substantiate that contention.

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

____gjw _  ___rjo___  ____rvo _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077227	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020213	
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.