BOARD DATE: 7 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014048 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____x____ __x______ __x__ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 7 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014048 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. As for the character of service, the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR2002083184 on 17 July 2003. 2. As for the issues of retirement points, reinstatement into the Individual Ready Reserve, and retirement, the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ___________x______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. BOARD DATE: 7 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014048 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests correction of his Chronological Statement of Retirement Points to show satisfactory/qualifying years of service from 1985 to 1995. He also requests, in effect, reconsideration of his earlier request for consideration for promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC). 2. The applicant states his satisfactory years were not properly reflected on his record of service. Additionally, he was not considered by a promotion board and as a result, he was involuntarily discharged. 3. The applicant provides: * Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Record of Proceedings (Docket Number AR2002083184), dated 17 July 2003 * Separation order (from the New York Army National Guard (NYARNG) and Honorable Discharge Certificate * National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), ending on 1 October 1989 * Officer Evaluation Reports, 12 March 1986 to 9 May 1988 * DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated August 1990 * Multiple DA Forms 1380 (Record of Individual Performance and Reserve Duty Training) * List of Army Correspondence Courses * Chronological Statement of Retirement Points * Letter, dated 21 April 2015, from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) to the applicant's member of Congress COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel requests a. The applicant's Statement of Retirement Points should be corrected to reflect his actual service, including his completion of requirements for satisfactory retirement years from 1985 through 1995. b. Reconsideration for promotion by a special selection board (SSB) on an accurate record, because the selection boards considering the applicant for promotion to LTC were prevented from reviewing an accurate record of his service in the ARNG and Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). c. Reinstatement into the IRR and retirement at the highest grade attained, regardless of the action of any selection board, as the applicant has completed sufficient years to earn protection from involuntary retirement. 2. Counsel states the applicant served on active duty in the Regular Army, in the ARNG, and the IRR, receiving outstanding evaluations and accruing sufficient service time and satisfactory years to qualify for protection from involuntary discharge, and to continue his service until retirement. He commanded three separate Army units as a captain, served in critical battalion and brigade staff positions, and is a graduate of several army programs, including Airborne School, Counterterrorism School, and the Command and General Staff College. Because of errors in the Army's record-keeping, some of which have already been recognized by this Board, the applicant's full record was not presented to selection boards, and his full service time was not credited, despite his repeatedly pointing out the Army 's errors. As a result, he was improperly retired involuntarily after boards that reviewed only an incomplete record declined to select him for promotion. The errors in record-keeping, and the inexcusable delay in responding to his requests for correction, have been no credit to the Army. All he asks is that his full periods of service be credited, so he will be allowed to complete his honorable service and be properly allowed to retire. a. The issue is ripe for decision by this Board. The applicant petitioned this Board for relief in June 2010. Six months later, on 28 December 2010, this Board informed him that he was required first to apply to HRC to exhaust his administrative remedies. He promptly redirected his request to HRC, which, incredibly, took over four years to act. That inexcusably long period elapsed without any response to the applicant's frustrated inquiries about the status of his request. With HRC's decision rendered at long last, the matter is now ripe for determination by this Board. To assist the Board in reviewing the record, he is submitting a new package of materials, including a new application. b. He served on active duty from 1986 to 1985. He enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) in 1976. He was the High Honor Trainee at his basic training at Fort Knox, KY. While attending Advanced Individual Training at Fort Rucker, AL, he was recommended for and accepted admission to Officer Candidate School at Fort Benning, GA, from which he was commissioned a second lieutenant in August 1977. He subsequently graduated from flight school at Fort Rucker. Over the next eight years, he served at Fort Hood, TX, and Fort Lewis, WA, as Commander of a Military Police Aviation Unit; Platoon Commander in the 6th Cavalry Brigade; Scout Platoon Leader for A Company, 2154th Attack Helicopter Battalion; Aviation Officer to the 3rd High Technology Brigade; staff advisor to the Brigade Commander; Commander of B Company; Battalion S-3;and Brigade Plans Officer. He was promoted promptly and received superior evaluations. In total, he served nine commendable years on active duty. He was released from active duty in May 1985. c. He served in the ARNG from 1986 to 1989. He joined the NYARNG in early 1986 and completed three and a half years of service, during which he served as a Brigade S-3 (operations officer) and participated in training exercises with the 10th Mountain Division. His ARNG record of service, including his three Army Achievement Awards and other decorations, are provided. His fitness reports for his ARNG service are also provided. As of 1989, he had accrued twelve years of creditable service. His chronological statement of retirement points, however, erroneously omits his service in the ARNG, which, under undisputed rules, should be counted towards his years of service. d. He served in the IRR from 1989 to 1999. He left the ARNG while attending law school and enrolled in the IRR. He fulfilled his obligations there through active duty training, military education courses, and correspondence courses, and maintained his qualifications through flight physicals and refresher flight training at Fort Meade, MD. In 1993, he served on active duty in Korea for one month. e. He was involuntarily discharged in 1999. After failing to be selected for promotion to LTC on what he now knows was an incomplete record, he was honorably, though involuntarily, discharged from the Ready Reserve in September 1999. Although he had on several occasions called to the attention of Army authorities that his service record should include all his years of satisfactory service, and he sought, but was denied, the opportunity to review his service record for completeness, the selection boards that considered his service were never provided with the records of his years in the ARNG, or his completion of numerous education and correspondence courses, which, taken together, establish that he had completed eighteen years of satisfactory service. Moreover, at least one selection board was misinformed of his time of service in grade. He was informed that the reason for his non-selection was "lack of participation," presumably because the records of his ARNG and Ready Reserve service were erroneously omitted from his record. In fact, the records show he had actively participated in his military duties through 1995. 3. Counsel further argues that the applicant's records of retirement points were incomplete when presented to selection boards, because they failed to credit him for his service in the ARNG and IRR, and improperly conveyed the impression of a "lack of participation." a. A prior decision of this Board recognized the Army's failure to keep correct records of his date of rank. A further decision of this Board is now required to credit him for all his years of service. Service in the ARNG is fully creditable towards Army retirement computations. Creditable years served in the IRR, consisting of drills, active duty for training, and completion of correspondence and other education courses, also count towards retirement computations (Title 10, U.S. Code, sections 12602, 12732). When all the records are properly considered, the applicant has accrued over eighteen years of satisfactory service in the Army, ARNG and IRR, as follows: (1) Nine years of satisfactory service on active duty in the Army beginning with his anniversary date of 23 September 1977 and continuing to his anniversary date of 23 September 1985. This service is undisputed. (2) Four years of satisfactory service with the ARNG, in which he served from March 1986 through October 1989. (3) Five years of satisfactory service in the IRR, through his retirement year ending 23 September 1995, as follows: (a) Retirement Year Ending (RYE) 23 September 1990. His ARNG service continued seven days into this year. In addition, he served thirteen days on active duty in the IRR, earned 15 Reserve membership points, and completed the Aviation Advanced Course, which included a residential portion at the training facility, giving him more than the required 50 points for a satisfactory year. (b) RYE 23 September 1991. He had 84 extension course points, which, combined with his membership points, qualifies this as a satisfactory year. (c) RYE 23 September 1992. He had only 33 points, accumulated through days on active duty, completion of a flight physical, and participation points. This does not count as a satisfactory year for retirement credit. (d) RYE 23 September 1993. He served 31 days on active duty, received 15 membership points, and completed 14 course hours of correspondence courses, adding up to another satisfactory year. (e) RYE 23 September 1994. The Army's Personnel Center Student Status Report records 123 credit hours from correspondence courses, which (at an award of one retirement point for each three hours), amounts to 41 points; adding the standard 15 participation points totals another satisfactory year. (f) RYE 23 September 1995. He served thirteen days on active duty, was credited on Records of Individual Performance Training with 29 points from correspondence courses, and received 15 participation points, exceeding the amount required for another satisfactory year. The Chronological Statement of Retirement Points reflects this as a satisfactory year. b. In total, the applicant accumulated sufficient points to make eighteen years of satisfactory service for retirement purposes. As a whole, this record shows a conscientious, fully-participating and highly-regarded officer, who did what was required to remain active in the reserves, complete required training and education programs, and continue to serve his country. This record firmly contradicts the ground of "non-participation" asserted as the reason for his non-selection to LTC. While it is understandable that the applicant failed for selection because the proof of his active participation was not included in his service record, it is not understandable that the failure to include these critical records has not been corrected. c. It is to remedy that failure that he has long been seeking the relief that is now ripe for decision. Once his eighteen satisfactory retirement years are properly reflected in his record, he will qualify for the sanctuary provisions of 10 U.S.C. §12646, and could not be involuntarily discharged. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by ABCMR in Docket Number AR2002083184 on 17 July 2003. 2. The applicant raises a new issue related to his retirement points and, through counsel, he makes a new argument that was not previously considered. This warrants consideration by the Board. 3. The applicant was born in April 1950. He turned 60 years of age in April 2010. He enlisted in the USAR under the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on 24 September 1976. He was discharged from the DEP on 26 October 1976. 4. He enlisted in the RA on 27 October 1976. He completed Officer Candidate School as well as aviation and military police training courses, and he was honorably released from active duty on 25 August 1977. He was issued a DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) that credited him with 9 months and 29 days of active service. 5. He was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer with concurrent call to active duty on 26 August 1977. He served in a variety of stateside or overseas assignments, including Hawaii from February 1978 to April 1979. 6. In January 1985, he requested to be released from active duty. His chain of command recommended approval and HRC (then known as U.S. Total Army Personnel Command or PERSCOM) approved his separation. 7. He was honorably released from active duty on 1 May 1985 and he was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement or IRR). His DD Form 214 show she completed 7 years, 8 months, and 6 days of active service with 9 months and 29 days of prior active service. 8. He was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the NYARNG and executed an oath of office on 12 March 1986. He was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), Aviation Brigade, 42nd Infantry Division. 9. On 10 May 1988, he was transferred to the Inactive National Guard (ING), and on 1 October 1989, he was relieved from the ING and honorably separated from the NYARNG. He was transferred to the USAR Control Group (IRR). 10. He was issued an NGB Form 22 that captured his 3 years, 6 months, and 20 days of inactive service from 12 March 1986 to 1 October 1989. The NGB also issued an order withdrawing his Federal recognition. 11. On 6 May 1991, by letter, PERSCOM-St. Louis notified the applicant that he was considered for promotion to major (MAJ) by a Reserve Selection Board (RCSB) that convened in March 1991 but he was not selected for promotion. 12. On 4 December 1992, by letter, PERSCOM-St. Louis issued the applicant a promotion memorandum to MAJ with an effective date of 29 March 1991. His promotion was based on his selection by a promotion advisory board under the 1991 criteria. Between 1 October 1994 and 5 September 1996 (as shown on his DA Form 1059), the applicant completed the Command and General Staff Officer Course. 13. On 6 January 1997, by letter, PERSCOM-St. Louis notified the applicant that he was considered for promotion to LTC by the 1996 RCSB but he was not selected. 14. On 18 June 1998, by letter, PERSCOM-St. Louis notified the applicant that he was considered for promotion to LTC by the 1997 RCSB but he was not selected. 15. On 25 March 1999, by letter, PERSCOM-St. Louis notified the applicant that he was considered for promotion to LTC by the 1998 RCSB but he was not selected. 16. On 31 August 1999, PERSCOM-St. Louis published Orders D-08-961270 honorably discharging the applicant from the USAR on 1 September 1999 and he was issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate. 17. On 26 September 2001, by letter, HRC informed the applicant that an SSB convened and considered his record for promotion to LTC under the 1997 criteria but he was not selected for promotion. The specific reasons for his non-selection were not known. His non-selection did not constitute a failure of selection; it was a confirmation of the action of the regularly convened board. 18. On 13 December 2001, by letter to the applicant's Member of Congress, the Chief, Office of Promotions and Reserve Components, PERSCOM-St. Louis, stated in reference to the applicant's promotion issue: a. The applicant was considered and non-selected by the 1996, 1997, and 1998 LTC Department of the Army RCSBs. The reasons for his non-selections are unknown because statutory requirements prevent disclosure of board proceedings to anyone not a member of the board. HRC does not know that he was not non-selected based on missing military education. Otherwise, his file received fair and equitable treatment by all the special selection boards. b. After a review of his 1996, 1997, and 1998 board consideration files, it was determined that the boards had not seen his highest civilian education, a Juris Doctor degree. Therefore, he received an SSB under each of the above criteria. He once again was non-selected under the 1996 and 1997 criteria. The results of the special SSB that considered him under 1998 criteria had not been released. When the results were approved for release, he would be notified of the results by mail (he was not selected). c. It is true that in April 2001, the applicant called and wanted to review his file in person. His SSB file had already been given to the DA Secretariat for their administrative processing and his file was about to be voted. In accordance with policy and regulation, no officer is allowed to appear before a selection board; therefore, he could not review his file. It was explained to him that HRC does not submit files to SSBs unless they have all required documents eligible to be seen by the board. His only document eligible to be placed into his promotion file was his Juris Doctor degree and for each of his three SSBs the document was seen by those boards. d. He requests in his letter that he be given a proprietary interest in his military service and that his years of service be certified and he be allowed to receive the military retirement he has earned in service to his country. A review of the retirement point summary for the applicant indicates he has eleven creditable years for his Reserve retirement, not the 20 years that is required. 19. On 24 May 2002, by letter, HRC informed the applicant that an SSB convened and considered his record for promotion to LTC under the 1998 criteria but he was not selected for promotion. The specific reasons for his non-selection were not known. 20. On 3 September 2002, he petitioned the ABCMR and contended that his date of rank was incorrectly listed and requested promotion consideration to LTC under the 1995 criteria. On 17 July 2003, in response to the applicant's petition (ABCMR Docket Number AR 200208314), the Board determined that based on his selection by a promotion advisory board under the 1991 criteria, his date of rank was entered incorrectly. The correct date of rank was 3 October 1989, which placed him in the zone for promotion consideration to LTC by the 1995 mandatory board. The Board recommended his consideration for promotion to LTC by an SSB. 21. On 23 May 2003, by memorandum, PERSCOM-St. Louis advised the applicant that an SSB convened and considered him for promotion but did not select him. The specific reason for his non-selection was unknown because the promotion board did not divulge those reasons for non-selection. 22. In June 2010, he petitioned the ABCMR for correction of his retirement points. However, as he had not exhaustef his administrative remedies at the time, the Army Review Boards Agency (AR20100017781) administratively closed his case and directed him to HRC. 23. On 12 April 2015, by letter to the applicant's Member of Congress, an HRC official responded to an inquiry on behalf of the applicant regarding his request to correct his military service records for retirement points and promotion. The official stated: a. The applicant's record was updated to reflect his date of rank of 3 October 1989 by the ABCMR. The Board granted him the opportunity for his record to be relooked by an SSB using the 1995 criteria. Unfortunately, he was not selected for promotion by the SSB. His AHRC Form 249-E (Chronological Statement of Retirement Points) reflects he completed 11 years of service. HRC is unable to add retirement points for his ARNG service. However, HRC accounted for all points that they are able to verify with the information sent with this inquiry and documents filed in his military service record. b. If the applicant feels this information is incorrect, he can apply to the ABCMR. Only the ABCMR can do corrective action. Within the Department of the Army, only this Board, acting for the Secretary of the Army, is empowered to consider applications for the purpose of determining the existence of an error or injustice in the records. 24. On 9 November 2016, a staff member of the ABCMR forwarded the applicant's complete packet and documents to HRC for review. As a result, HRC rendered an advisory opinion on 6 December 2016. An HRC official stated his command reviewed and recalculated the retirement points. The applicant has completed 13 years and 2 days of qualifying service toward regular retirement. 25. The applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinion for review and comments. His counsel responded on 27 December 2016. He stated: a. His office represents the applicant in connection with his application to the Correction Board, which has been pending since August 2015. His application describes in detail the documented errors in record-keeping that deprived him of credit for his full periods of service on active duty in the Army, ARNG, and IRR. b. While awaiting action by this Board, the applicant has received a letter dated 6 December 2016, originating at HRC and referencing his petition and stating that "Our office has credited you with all point (sic) submitted by you." We note that the applicant's application was pending before HRC for four years, from 2011 to 2015, before it ultimately concluded its review by declining to take action, allowing the applicant to submit his pending petition to this Board. This letter from HRC, which shows no copy sent to the Board, encloses a Chronological Statement of Retirement Points that differs from the statement previously provided to the applicant. Moreover, the copy of this Statement appears to be incomplete, consisting of a single page that says at the bottom "Continuance on Page 2," which was not provided. c. Counsel contends he is uncertain as to the import of the HRC's letter. He does not understand it to be a decision of this Board. Perhaps it is merely meant to state the position of the HRC with regard to the applicant's petition, but if so, it is incomplete and inaccurate. It does increase the applicant's credited points for his years in the ARNG, confirming his contention in his petition that the original Chronological Statement was unreliable. Nevertheless, it continues to fail to credit the applicant fully for his three and a half years of service in the Army National Guard from 1986 to 1989. Equally important, the credits for his years in the IRR, which HRC does not address, continue to be understated and incomplete, for all the reasons set forth in detail in his August 2015 petition. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation (AR) 15-185 (ABCMR) states ABCMR members will review all applications that are properly before them to determine the existence of an error or injustice; direct or recommend changes in military records to correct the error or injustice, if persuaded that material error or injustice exists and that sufficient evidence exists on the record. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 2. AR 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers) provides policy for selecting and promoting commissioned officers of both the ARNG and the USAR. Officers and warrant officers who have either failed of selection for promotion, or who were erroneously not considered for promotion through administrative error may be reconsidered for promotion by either a promotion advisory board or a special selection board, as appropriate. a. Promotion advisory boards are non-statutory boards, and are convened to reconsider all warrant officers, to include commissioned warrant officers. These boards will also reconsider commissioned officers (other than commissioned warrant officers) who were either non-selected or were erroneously not considered for promotion by a mandatory promotion board convened before 1 October 1996. b. SSBs, convened on and after 1 October 1996, will reconsider commissioned officers, (other than commissioned warrant officers) who were wrongly not considered and reconsider commissioned officers (other than commissioned warrant officers) who were considered but not selected by mandatory promotion boards that convened on or after 1 October 1996. These boards do not reconsider officers who were not considered or not selected by mandatory promotion boards that convened before 1 October 1996. Records of officers or former officers will be referred for SSB action when the Office of Promotions (RC) determines that an officer was eligible for promotion consideration; however, the officer’s records were, through error, not submitted to a mandatory promotion selection board; or a review of a mandatory selection board finds that an officer’s records contained a material error. The ABCMR requests such a referral. c. A material error is defined as one or more errors of such a nature that in the judgment of the reviewing official (or body) may have caused an individual’s non-selection by a promotion selection board. Had such errors been corrected at the time the individual was considered, a reasonable chance would have resulted that the individual would have been recommended for promotion. 3. Title 10, U.S. Code, sections 12731-12737, in order to be eligible for retired pay at age 60, under Title 10, U.S. Code, Sections 12731-12737, a Reserve Soldier or former Reserve Soldier must have completed a minimum of 20 qualifying years of service and has attained the eligibility age. In the case of a person who completed the service requirements before 25 April 2005, the last six years of qualifying service must have been performed in a Reserve status, but not while a member of a regular component, the Fleet Reserve, or the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve. For those completing the service requirement before 5 October 1994, the last eight years of qualifying service must have been performed in a Reserve status. Since July 1, 1949 a Reserve Soldier must have earned at least 50 retirement points per year for that service to be creditable for retirement. 4. AR 140-185 (Training and Retirement Points Credits and Unit Level Strength Accounting Record) (does not apply to active duty Soldiers or to ARNG Soldiers) provides the criteria for the awarding of retirement points and prescribes the types of training and activities for which retirement points are authorized. It discusses the procedures for recording retirement point credits and training for USAR personnel. For USAR Soldiers, the Annual Statement of Retirement Points gives a permanent record of the total retirement points a Soldier earns during a retirement year; tells the Soldier whether he/she earned sufficient points to be credited with a qualifying period for retired pay or for retention in an active status, and/or gives the Soldier an opportunity to request correction of errors in the statement. Before October 2015, the ARPC Form 249, ARPC Form 249-E, and AHRC 249 were used to record retirement points. Effective 1 October 2015, the DA Form 5016 provides an annual listing pf creditable military service through the previous retirement anniversary year. AR 140-185 provides the source documents authorized to award points. 5. NGB Form 23A (ARNG Current Annual Statement), NGB Form 23A1 (ARNG Retirement Points Statement Supplemental Detailed Report), NGB Form 23B (ARNG Retirement Points History Statement), NGB Form 23C (ARNG Retirement Points Statement Application for Retired Pay), and NGB Form 23D (Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay for Non-Regular Service (20 Years)) are all NGB Forms, specific to the Army National Guard and Air National Guard. The NGB Form 23B is the form commonly used by various States to record ARNG Retirement Points History. DISCUSSION: 1. As for the personal hearing, by regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR. In this case, the evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the applicant are sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time. 2. As for his retirement points: a. There are many source documents to capture, account, verify, and record retirement points. For USAR Soldiers, the unit administrator initiates the forms and transmits those points via the Regional Support Command to PERSCOM-St. Louis, now known as HRC, Personnel Actions Branch. The Soldier provides the unit with proof of one or more performance source documents. HRC verifies the points and records them on a DA Form 5016. b. ARNG Soldiers have their retirement points recorded in a separate retirement point accounting system. Upon retirement, National Guard Soldiers retirement points are not fed into the Retirement Points Accounting System (RPAS). NGB Form 23A is utilized as the source document of the National Guard duty performed by a Soldier. Before a former or retired member of the National Guard can start to draw retired pay, he or she must submit a retired pay certification packet (including a summary of all retirement points earned while in the National Guard) to the HRC Retired Pay Office. c. The applicant provided source documents to HRC for verification. HRC audited his records, verified his points/documents, and recalculated his retirement points. Based on what he submitted, HRC determined he completed 13 years and 2 months of qualifying service for retirement. Only one of his 3 years, 6 months, and 20 days of ARNG service counted as a qualifying years (he earned 50 or more retirement points). In the absence of his NGB Form 23B, it is not possible to determine if he earned additional retirement points or if the points he earned had already been counted on his DA Form 5016. d. The applicant remains eligible to address his retirement points issue with the State ARNG, obtain an accurate NGB Form 23, and forward such form to HRC for verification of any missing retirement points. 3. As for being placed on the retired list: a. By law and regulation, to be eligible for retired pay based on non-regular service, an individual must have attained the age of 60, completed a minimum of 20 years of qualifying service, and served the last 8 years (or 6 years before 2005) of his or her qualifying service as an RC Soldier. A qualifying year is defined as a year of service during which a Reservist earns at least 50 retirement points. b. The applicant provided evidence of completion of 13 years and 2 days of qualifying service for non-regular retirement. Although he turned 60, he is ineligible for retired pay because he his record is void of any evidence and he has not provided evidence that shows he earned at least 20 years of qualifying service for retired pay. 4. As for reinstatement, the Army defines the word "discharge" as the complete severance from all military status gained by enlistment or appointment. The applicant was discharged from the USAR in September 1999. Reappointment as a commissioned officer is similar to an appointment and requires a scroll by the Secretary of Defense. While this action is not within the purview of this Board, this Record of Proceedings serves as authority for him to submit his appointment packet to HRC for consideration. If favorably considered, he may be reappointed to the USAR as a Reserve Component commissioned officer with an effective date of future scroll and with time in grade commensurate with previous service. 5. As for his promotion, he was considered for promotion to LTC by the 1996, 1997, and 1998 promotion boards but he was not selected. He was also considered by an SSB under the 1995 criteria and he was not selected. He was then considered by an SSB under the 1996, 1997, and 1998, but he was not selected for promotion. a. Selection boards are composed of senior officers of demonstrated judgment who are not allowed to divulge the reasons for selection or non-selection. These members evaluate the Soldier's official record and select a number of officers for promotion within established selection constraints. The Secretary of the Army in his Memorandum of Instructions establishes the criteria for each selection board. b. The selection process is an extremely competitive process based on the "whole Soldier" concept. It is an unavoidable fact that some officers considered for promotion will not be selected. There are always more outstanding officers who are fully qualified to perform duty at the next higher grade, but who are not selected because of selection capability restrictions. c. It is unfortunate that the applicant was not selected for promotion to LTC despite being considered multiple times; however, it is a well-known fact that not everyone who is eligible for promotion during a given selection board is selected, because there are normally more persons eligible than there are promotion allocations. Accordingly, promotion boards are tasked with choosing the best qualified Soldiers to meet the needs of the Army at the time. d. It is also a well-known fact that promotion boards do not reveal the basis for selection or non-selection. Inasmuch as the Board does not have the luxury of reviewing all of the records that were considered by those promotion boards that did not select the applicant it must be presumed that what each board did was correct. Since promotion selection boards are not authorized by law to divulge the reasons for selection or non-selection of any officer, specific reasons for the promotion board's recommendations are not known. e. A non-selected officer can only conclude that a promotion selection board determined that his or her overall record, when compared with the records of contemporaries in the zone of consideration, did not reflect as high a potential as those selected for promotion. e. Because the applicant has not shown a material error, an SSB for promotion consideration to LTC is not required. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150014048 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150014048 15 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2