IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 September 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080010545 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, in effect, that her date of rank (DOR) for promotion to sergeant (SGT/E-5) be corrected to reflect 12 July 2004. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that she should have been promoted to SGT upon completion of advanced individual training (AIT) on 12 July 2004, the date of her arrival to her first duty station. However, she states she was not promoted to SGT until 21 January 2005, twenty four weeks after her arrival to her first duty station. She indicates that it was her command’s policy to base all promotions under the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program (ACASP) on the date an individual was granted a TOP Secret/Sensitive Compartmental Information (SCI) clearance rather than the TOP Secret clearance required for their MOS. She also states that, as a result of an Inspector General (IG) complaint, her command has since published a memorandum, dated 12 October 2007, to provide the correct guidance to use when granting accelerated promotions under the ACASP and that her DOR should be corrected accordingly. 3. The applicant provides the following documents in support of her application: Self-Authored Statement; Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) Performance Related Documents; and Unit ACASP Memorandum, dated 12 October 2007. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant’s enlistment contract (DD Form 4) confirms she initially enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 31 July 2003, in the rank of private first class (PFC). 2. A Statement for Enlistment (DA Form 3286-68), dated 31 July 2003, which was prepared during her initial enlistment processing, confirms she enlisted under the ACASP based on her civilian acquired Spanish linguist skills. This document indicates she would be advanced to E-5 after she completed her initial entry training and 8 weeks of proficiency training at her first duty station, provided she received a recommendation from her unit commander. 3. A United States Air Force Certificate of Training confirms the applicant completed the Electronic Warfare/Voice Interceptor (Spanish) Course (MOS 98G), her advanced individual training (AIT) on 1 July 2004, and she was reassigned to the 314th Military Intelligence Battalion, San Antonio, Texas, with a report date of 17 July 2004. 4. On 21 January 2005, the applicant was promoted from PFC to SGT under the ACASP. 5. The applicant provides a Memorandum from the Commanding Officer of the 314th Military Intelligence Battalion, dated 12 October 2007, which provided a final command recommendation on the disposition of unresolved unit ACASP issues. The battalion commander stated, in pertinent part, that although not specified in their ACASP Standing Operating Procedures (SOP), it was their policy to require all Soldiers in MOS 98G, who were otherwise qualified, to possess the appropriate security clearance (final SCI) before it could adequately conduct the required 8 to 12 week proficiency training period based on unit missions, location, and the National Security Agency (NSA) policies. 6. The battalion commander also stated that although the units acted fairly consistently, and properly adhered to Army Regulations and Battalion Policy at the time, Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) findings imply that the issue related to the unit prerequisite security clearance standard prior to the mandated 8 week proficiency training and evaluation period and assuming this was factual and accurate, he recommended that the timetable within their SOP be adhered to minus the security clearance delays by removing that requirement from the equation. He finally indicated that all ACASP enlistees should be promoted within 10 to 14 weeks based on the 2 weeks of unit inprocessing plus the specified 8 to 12 week proficiency training period. 7. On 19 December 2007, the applicant was honorably discharged from active duty by reason of disability with severance pay. The DD Form 214 she received at that time shows she completed 4 years, 4 months, and 19 days active military service. 8. In connection with the processing of this case, on 14 August 2008, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Recruiting Policy Branch, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-1. This Department of the Army (DA) recruiting official indicated that in accordance with governing regulations, a Soldier who enlisted under the ACASP for MOS 98G, with an entry grade of E-3 is authorized an accelerated promotion to E-5 upon completion of all required training, 8 weeks of proficiency training after arrival at the first duty station, and with the commander's approval. In this case, the command’s policy allows Soldiers two weeks to in-process prior to starting the 8 weeks proficiency training, thereby increasing this proficiency training period to 10 weeks. 9. The DA G-1 Chief, Recruiting Branch recommended administrative relief in this case based on statements from the applicant’s chain of command that indicated the applicant's service as a noncommissioned officer (NCO) was outstanding during the period in question. He further recommended that the effective date of her promotion and date of rank to SGT be changed to 30 September 2004, which was 10 weeks after her arrival at her first duty station and accounts for 2 weeks of in-processing and 8 weeks of proficiency training at the unit. 10. On 14 August 2008, a copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for information and comments, if any. On 15 August 2008, the applicant concurred with the G-1 advisory opinion. 11. Army Regulation 601-210 prescribes the Army’s enlistment policy. Chapter 7, Section I, provides policy and guidance for implementing the ACASP. It states, in pertinent part, that promotion to the accelerated grade and award of the MOS authorized by the enlistment agreement will be made either with approval of the unit commander or by the training commander for active Army personnel, after successful completion of all required training. For RA Soldiers, this includes 8 weeks of successful performance in the skill. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s contention that her SGT promotion effective date and date of rank should be corrected to reflect 12 July 2004, instead of 21 January 2005, has been carefully considered and sufficient evidence has been found to support granting partial relief. 2. By regulation, promotion to the accelerated grade and award of the MOS authorized by the enlistment agreement will be made, either with approval of the unit commander or by the training commander for active Army personnel, after successful completion of all training, which includes at least 8 weeks of successful performance in the skill. The evidence of record confirms the applicant enlisted under the provisions of the ACASP and that upon completion of all required 98G MOS training, she was reassigned to her first duty station, where she arrived for duty on 17 July 2004. 3. A review of the ACASP promotion policy by the battalion commander resulted in a determination that the requirement for a member to have a final SCI clearance was too restrictive and resulted in a change to the unit's ACASP promotion policy that provided for the ACASP promotion to be accomplished between 10 to 12 weeks after assignment to the unit, which at the minimum accounted for a 2 week in-processing period and 8 week proficiency training period. As a result, given the applicant's arrival at the unit on 14 July 2004, she would have met the minimum requirement for promotion on 30 September 2004. 4. Given the recommendation of the applicant's chain of command and the revised unit policy, it would be appropriate to grant partial relief in this case by adjusting the applicant's SGT promotion effective date and date of rank to 30 September 2004, which was the recommendation contained in the DA G-1 advisory opinion that was concurred with by the applicant. The applicant should also be provided all back pay and allowances due as a result of this correction. 5. Given the applicant did not arrive in her unit until 17 July 2004, and did not complete the minimum 10 weeks necessary to be promoted in the unit under its revised ACASP promotion policy, it would not be appropriate to adjust her SGT promotion effective date and date rank to 12 July 2004, as she requested. Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to grant this portion of the requested relief. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by adjusting her Sergeant promotion effective date and date of rank from 21 January 2005 to 30 September 2004; and by providing her all back pay and allowances due as a result. 2. The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to adjusting the effective date of and her date of rank to sergeant to reflect 12 July 2004. _______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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080010545 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080010545 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1