APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reinstatement of his dual component status

Document Sample
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reinstatement of his dual component status Powered By Docstoc
					ABCMR Memorandum of                           AC93-13695
Consideration (cont)

APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reinstatement of his dual component status and
retroactive retirement in the rank of chief warrant officer two (CW2)
effective 1 March 1994.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was never afforded the
opportunity to participate in the Reserve Component Dual Component
Program and was therefore denied the opportunity to retire in the
highest grade he held (CW2). He goes on to state that be believes
that he should have been entitled to retire in the rank of CW2 instead
of the pay grade of E-6 and that he would have taken the necessary
steps to request enrollment in the program had he known of the
requirement to do so before it was discontinued. In support of his
application he submits a copy of the message that closed the Reserve
Component Dual Component Program to further accessions.

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

After serving 10 years, 5 months, and 18 days of total active service,
the applicant was honorably discharged on 19 May 1988 in the pay
grade of E-6 for the purpose of accepting an appointment as a USAR
warrant officer with a concurrent call to active duty.

On 20 May 1988 he was appointed to the rank of warrant officer one
(WO1) in the USAR with a concurrent call to active duty.

On 6 September 1989, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER)
dispatched an electronic message which closed the Reserve Component
Dual Component Program and established as a condition of enlistment,
that officers resign their USAR commissions (This message had no
effect on the applicant, as he was serving on active duty as a USAR
officer).

On 13 June 1990, while stationed in Germany, the applicant received
a general officer letter of reprimand which was subsequently directed
to be filed in the applicant’s official military personnel file.

He was promoted to the rank of CW2 on 30 June 1990.

On 24 June 1991 he was honorably released from active duty under
the provisions of Army regulation 635-100, paragraph 3-58a, for
failure to meet minimum retention standards. He had served 3 years,
1 month, and 5 days of active service as a warrant officer and 13
years, 6 months, and 23 days of total active service.


                                  2
ABCMR Memorandum of                           AC93-13695
Consideration (cont)


He again enlisted in the USAR under the Delayed Entry Program (DEP)
on 23 December 1991 and then enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 March
1992 for a period of 3 years in the pay grade of E-6.

On 28 February 1994 the applicant was honorably released from active
duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 12,
and the Voluntary Early Retirement Program (VERP). He was
transferred to the USAR Control Group (Retired) in the pay grade
of E-6 effective 1 March 1994. He had served 15 years, 6 months,
and 25 days of total active service.

Army Regulation 601-210 sets forth the authority for the procurement
of personnel through the Regular Army (RA) and Army Reserve Enlistment
Program. It states, in effect, that an officer, commissioned or
warrant, who is otherwise qualified, may enlist in the RA or USAR,
however, as a condition of enlistment, the officer must resign his
or her commission. Under no circumstances will officers be led to
believe that they may retain their commission or warrant under the
Reserve Dual Component Program.

Title 10, United States Code, section 261(b) states, in pertinent
part, that no person may be a member of more than one Reserve component
at a time.

Section 3964 of that title provides that each warrant officer and
enlisted member of the RA, is entitled, when his or her active service
plus service on the retired list totals 30 years, to be advanced
on the retired list to the highest temporary grade in which he served
on active duty satisfactorily, as determined by the Secretary of
the Army. It also provides, in section 1371, that warrant officers
are entitled to retire as warrant officers in the grade they held
the day prior to retirement, provided they held the grade
satisfactorily for a period of more than 30 days.

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. In order for the applicant to be retired as a warrant officer
on 1 March 1994, he had to hold status as a USAR warrant officer
on the day prior to his retirement. The applicant had no status



                                  3
ABCMR Memorandum of                           AC93-13695
Consideration (cont)

as a warrant officer at the time he retired, nor was he eligible
for accession into the Reserve Component Dual Component Program.

2. At the time the applicant exercised his statutory entitlement
to enlist within 6 months of his separation as a warrant officer,
a condition of enlistment was that he resign his USAR commission.


3. The applicant contends that he was unaware that the Reserve
Component Dual Component Program had been discontinued and that he
was not afforded the opportunity to make known his choices in the
matter; however, the issue has no merit. At the time the program
was suspended, the applicant was a USAR warrant officer serving on
active duty and was not eligible to participate in the program.

4. Although the applicant was not eligible to retire as a warrant
officer on 1 March 1994, this will not preclude him from being advanced
to the rank of warrant officer on the Retired list when his service
on the Retired list combined with his active service totals 30 years.

5. 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 the
aforementioned requirement.

6. 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

                         DENY APPLICATION




                                  4
ABCMR Memorandum of                AC93-13695
Consideration (cont)


                       Karl F. Schneider
                       Acting Director




                         5

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:2
posted:11/18/2011
language:English
pages:4