APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his date of rank (DOR) be adjusted.

APPLICANT STATES:  That when he enlisted the wrong rule was applied in granting him credit for college courses he had completed.  He contends that had all of his college credits been considered he would have an earlier DOR and received an accelerated promotion to pay grade E-4.

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

He enlisted in the USAR delayed entry program on 23 January 1991 and entered on active duty for 4 years on 19 February 1991 in pay grade E-3.

The applicant enlisted under a program that authorized a pay grade higher than E-1 at the time of enlistment.  Entry at the higher grade was based upon the successful completion of a specified number of college credits.  Specifically, he was enlisted in pay grade E-3 under rule E-2 which provided that since he was credited with thirty to fifty-nine semester hours of college credits he could be enlisted in pay grade E-3.  No other provisions were applicable under this enlistment rule.

The applicant believes, however, that since he had over 90 semester hours of college credit, he should have been enlisted under rule E-4.  That rule would not only have permitted his enlistment in pay grade E-3 but also provided for advancement to pay grade E-4 after 6 months of continuous active duty.

In an opinion (COPY ATTACHED) to this Board, the US Total Army Personnel Command indicates that the applicant was properly enlisted in pay grade E-3 under the correct rule and regulation in effect at the time of his enlistment.  The enlistment rule he cites is from a regulation that had been superseded and was not applicable at the time of his enlistment.

Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program, the regulation governing his enlistment, was changed effective 14 February 1990.  The 11 September 1987 edition of the regulation, under which he contends he enlisted, was superseded on 14 February 1990.  The revised regulation also provided for enlistment in pay grade E-3 for enlistees with sixty or more semesters hours of college credit, but did not provide for subsequent advancement to pay grade E-4 after 6 months of continuous active duty.

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(s), it is concluded:

1.  The applicant was properly accessed into the active Army in pay grade E-3 in accordance with the correct enlistment rule and regulation in effect at the time.  The regulatory guidance then in effect does not support his request for adjustment in his DOR.

2.  It appears that his confusion concerning the regulatory rule under which he was enlisted stems from his applying the provisions of a outdated regulation to his situation.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there appears to be 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




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director