APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That her military record be corrected to reflect that she was enlisted as a specialist rather than a private first class (PFC).

APPLICANT STATES:  That when she enlisted she was not credited with the correct grade.  Since she had served in the Army National Guard as a specialist she should have been enlisted into the Regular Army in that grade.

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

She enlisted in the South Carolina National Guard on 6 May 1994.  She served her initial active duty for training (IADT) from 6 June 1995 to 22 July 1995 and was released from active duty in the grade of PFC..  She was enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 26 March 1996 in the grade of PFC.

A Certificate of Promotion in her record reflects that she was promoted to specialist in the National Guard on 26 March 1996 the same date she enlisted in the Regular Army.  Additionally, there is a US Army Recruiting Command Form 978 (remarks sheet) whereon she acknowledges that she is enlisting for 3 years in pay grade E-4.  Finally, an entry in the remarks section of her enlistment contract showing her authorized grade for enlistment as E-4 has been struck over to show the grade as E-3.

The US Total Army Personnel Command in a comment to the Board, indicated that the applicant was enlisted in the correct pay grade of E-3 under the provisions of Army Regulation 601-210.  Since there was no evidence that the soldier was advanced to pay grade E-4 prior to her enlistment no retroactive adjustment in her grade is authorized.

Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program, provides, in part, that applicants who have taken part in an IADT program and have been awarded an MOS and enlist within 12 months from the date of release from IADT, the enlistment pay grade will be the grade held at the time of release from IADT.

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.  Despite the conflicting information in her file concerning the grade in which she should have been enlisted, it appears that the grade in which she was enlisted, PFC, is correct.

2.  There are no documents, other than the Certificate of Promotion dated 26 March 1996, to show her National Guard grade as a specialist.  However, that certificate is dated the same day she entered the Regular Army and for that reason is considered to be invalid since she could not hold status in two different components at the same time.  Prior to her enlistment in the active Army she would have had to be discharged from the National Guard, thus she could not have been promoted and discharged simultaneously on the same date.

3.  The strike-over of pay grade E-4 in the remarks section of her enlistment contract to reflect E-3, was most probably done after it had been determined that the information on the US Army Recruiting Command Form 978 (showing her enlistment grade as specialist) was incorrect and enlistment in that grade was inappropriate.

4.  Since the determination in this case depends somewhat on supposition, if the applicant can document her Army National Guard promotion to specialist prior to 26 March 1996 she should petition this Board for reconsideration.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there appears to be no basis at this time 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