MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            23 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064778

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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 he be awarded constructive credit.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that upon his initial entry into the United States Army Reserve (USAR), he had a bachelor’s degree, masters degree, certificate of advance study, as well as other certificates and specialized training in administrative management beneficial to the Army Medical Department (AMEDD).  He claims that during his application process for entry into the USAR, the three recruiters that worked with him were impressed with his credentials and background.  At that time, they told him about constructive credit, which could be awarded to people to compensate them for education, training, and life experience prior to joining the military.  The application process for him to join the USAR took over three years, and when he received his acceptance letter from the Army, much to his surprise, there was no constructive credit awarded.  He immediately contacted his recruiter and was informed that awarding of constructive credit was no longer being done for that year.  Upon his arrival at his first and second units, he consulted the personnel staff and was informed that there was nothing they could do about the situation.  When he arrived at his present unit, he was told the same thing; however, the Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel (DCSPER) of his current unit encouraged him to apply to this Board for the requested relief.  In support of his application, he provides copies education and experience documents to support his request. 

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

On 2 July 1996, he was appointed a second lieutenant (2LT) in the Medical Service Corps (MSC) of the USAR.  A Record of Award of Entry Grade Credit-Health Services Officers (DA Form 5074-1-R), prepared on the applicant by the Chief, Medical Service Branch, during his entrance processing shows that he was granted no constructive credit.

The appointment memorandum, dated 2 July 1996, issued by the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), St Louis, Missouri, indicated that his primary specialty was 70B and that he was being awarded no constructive credit. 

In July 1998, the applicant was promoted to first lieutenant (1LT) and in June 2001, he was promoted to captain (CPT).  He is currently serving in this rank in a Troop Program Unit of the USAR.  

In connection with the processing of this case an advisory opinion was requested of and received from the Chief, MSC Division, Health Services Directorate, United States Army Recruiting Command, Fort Knox, Kentucky, dated 
22 February 2002.  It indicated that the information provided by the applicant does not increase the amount of constructive credit that is allowable under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-101 and Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 6000-13.  
The USAREC advisory opinion also confirmed that the applicant’s appointment specialty was 70B (Health Services Administration Officer), which is an entry level developmental position that requires a baccalaureate degree and successful completion of the AMEDD Officer’s Basic Course (OBC).  By regulation, constructive credit is not authorized for an entry level specialty of 70B. 

On 1 March 2002, the applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion in order to have the opportunity to respond to its contents.  However, to date, he has failed to reply.  

Army Regulation 135-101 prescribes the policies, procedures, and eligibility criteria for appointment in the Reserve Components of the Army, with or without concurrent call to active duty, in the six branches of the AMEDD.  It states, in pertinent part, that education and experience constructive credit for MSC officers is limited to that required for entry into the specialty.  As a result, no constructive credit is authorized to members entering the MSC in an entry level specialty.  

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.  The Board noted the contention of the applicant that he was entitled to constructive credit based on his pre-appointment education and experience.  However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  As noted in the USAREC advisory opinion, the applicable regulation does not authorize constructive credit to members being appointed in an entry level specialty.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was appointed in the MSC of the USAR in an entry level specialty and that he was informed at the time of appointment that no constructive credit was being awarded.  

3.  Although, the Board did note and consider the applicant’s impressive 
pre-appointment record of education and experience, given the applicable regulatory guidance, it finds no error or injustice related to his not receiving constructive credit for these accomplishments.  Therefore, the Board concludes there is no basis for granting the requested relief in this case.  

4.  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 this requirement.

5.  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

    KAK         MDM            TL         DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064778	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/04/23	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	N/A	
DISCHARGE REASON	N/A	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  229	112.0700	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.