MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           22 May 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002082524

	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	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		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 records be corrected to show that she completed 20 qualifying years of service for retired pay.  

APPLICANT STATES:  She called the (now) Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) to make arrangements to reenlist when her enlistment was nearing completion.  She was asked if she had a current physical examination.  When she replied she didn’t have a current physical, the person she was talking to said that since she didn’t have sufficient service to retire, her records had already been sent for discharge.  She believes that it is an injustice not to have allowed her to reenlist or extend her enlistment since she only had a little over 2 years to go to qualify for retired pay, and only had 1 month and 10 days to go to qualify for the 18 year “lock in.”  She adds that she believes that her record of retirement points is in error.

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

She enlisted in the US Army Reserve (USAR) on 19 February 1975, was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) of administrative specialist, and was promoted to pay grade E-7.  The applicant’s date of birth is 22 February 1940.

On 15 March 1989, the applicant was transferred from her USAR unit to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) due to her geographical relocation.

On 10 January 1987, the applicant reenlisted for six years, giving her an expiration of term of service (ETS) of 9 January 1993.

On 12 January 1993, the applicant was honorably discharged.

In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the 
AR-PERSCOM.  The AR-PERSCOM stated that the applicant is correct in that she has less than 18 years of service.  The AR-PERSCOM opines that there is nothing in the applicant’s records which would warrant granting an administrative specialist two additional years of service.  In the processing of its advisory opinion, the AR-PERSCOM calculated the applicant’s service.  While the calculations show that she has 17 years, 10 months and 23 days of creditable service, she only has 11 qualifying years of service for retired pay.

The applicant was furnished a copy of the advisory opinion and submitted a rebuttal.  In that rebuttal she opines that she was denied reenlistment or extension of her enlistment, and thereby denied the opportunity to qualify for retired pay, through no fault of her own.  She continues that “I respectfully request that you keep this application open until all facets are covered and my questions as to why this atrocity was allowed to happen are answered.”  The applicant also requests a retirement point summary.  The applicant then submits an explanation of why she was discharged, which is essentially the same information that she provided with her original application.

Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1332 defines a qualifying year of service for retired pay as one in which a Reservist or Guardsman is credited with at least 50 retirement points.

Army Regulation 140-10, Assignments, Attachments, Details, and Transfers, paragraph 1-25e, requires the approval of the AR-PERSCOM to discharge reservists who have 18 or more years of qualifying service.  Paragraph 7-3 of this regulation requires enlisted soldiers to be discharged or transferred to the Retired Reserve on the last day of the month they turn age 60.

Army Regulation 140-111, U.S. Army Reserve Reenlistment Program, paragraph 7-4, outlines the procedures that are taken when a Reservist who is assigned to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) desires to immediately reenlist.  Table 2-1, Rule A, Age, Item 4, states that reservists who are unable to complete 20 qualifying years of service for retired pay by age 60 are disqualified from reenlisting.

Army Regulation 135-178, Separation of Enlisted Personnel, paragraph 11-1, states that on the expiration of term of enlistment or period of statutorily obligated service, the enlisted soldier will be discharged.

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

1.  The applicant has not submitted any evidence to support her contention that she attempted to reenlist or extend her enlistment.

2.  Reenlistment is a proactive process.  If the soldier does not take the actions required to reenlist, he or she is discharged, as an operation of law and regulation, at their ETS.  This has no bearing on how many years of service a soldier has at the time of their ETS.

3.  However, the applicant was, in fact, incapable of earning 20 qualifying years of service for retired pay at her ETS in 1993, based on the AR-PERSCOM’s retirement point calculation.  She had 11 qualifying years of service, so she required 9 years to earn 20 qualifying years of service.  However, she only had 7 years remaining until she reached age 60 and had to be mandatorily discharged or transferred to the Retired Reserve.

4.  While the applicant has stated that she contests the retirement points credited to her, and by implication the number of qualifying years of service she has earned, she has not submitted any documentation to show that the 
AR-PERSCOM’s retirement point summary is in error.

5.  While not an issue in this case since there is no such thing as an 18 year “lock in” when a soldier is discharged at their ETS, the applicant did not have nearly 18 years of qualifying service.  She had nearly 18 years of creditable service.  Since the approval authority for certain types of separation only elevates for soldiers with 18 or more years of qualifying service, this would not have been a consideration even if the applicant had 18 years of creditable service.

6.  The Board concurs with the AR-PERSCOM that a senior noncommissioned officer who holds the MOS of an administrative specialist should know the procedures to reenlist.  As such, the Board must conclude that the applicant choose not to reenlist, rather than was denied reenlistment.

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

___gjw __  ____sk __  ____rvo _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002082524	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030522	
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.	135.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.