IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 May 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080019180 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 that she be authorized the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) Critical Skills Retention Bonus (CSRB) as an exception to policy. 2. The applicant states she was fully qualified and was offered participation in the CSRB program. She believes that the individual who recruited her for this program was either incompetent or dishonest. She thought she had signed a contract but is now told that it is not valid. 3. The applicant provides, in support of her request, her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); Human Resources Command (HRC), St Louis orders number C-07-813614, dated 21 July 2008; and All Army Activities (ALARACT) message 007/208, which was used as a contract for the CSRB program. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant completed the Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps requirements, was appointed a USAR Medical Service Corps officer, and entered active duty on 24 May 1999. She was released from active duty, as a captain, on 31 January 2006. She had completed 6 years, 8 months and 7 days of active duty service and no inactive duty service. 2. HRC - St Louis orders number C-07-813614, dated and effective on 21 July 2008, transferred her, voluntarily, from the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) to the 7304th Medical Training Support Battalion, a troop program unit (TPU). 3. On 25 July 2008, the applicant signed a copy of ALARACT message 007/208 that had the blanks filled-in to serve as a contract for the CSRB. This included the statement that she was assigned against "a valid unit vacancy on the unit manning report." It was also signed by a Service representative and the applicant's signature was witnessed by the executive officer of the 7304th Medical Training Support Battalion. 4. HRC - St Louis Orders B-08-805550, dated 25 August 2008, promoted the applicant to the rank of major effective on and with a date of rank of 21 July 2008. 5. ALARACT message 007/208 sets forth the qualifications for the CSRB, including that only USAR officers, except for Chaplains and Judge Advocates General, in the rank of captain are eligible. 6. An advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Officer Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1. It noted that the applicant was not qualified for the CSRB, because she was a major at the time she completed the contract. Even though the promotion orders were not published until 25 August 2008, the applicant must have known that she had been selected for promotion and was promoted effective upon her assignment to a major's slot in the unit. The opinion also pointed out that the applicant could have requested a delay in her promotion, but she did not do so and the contract was invalid because she did not meet the rank qualification [captain] and was not "assigned against a valid unit vacancy," a captain's position. 7. A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant, on 10 February 2009. No response was received. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant states she was fully qualified for and was offered participation in the CSRB program. She thought she had signed a contract but is now told that it is not valid. 2. While the applicant may or may not have known that she was being assigned to a major's position and consequently promoted, she was not fully qualified. The CSRB was available to USAR captains who were assigned against a vacant captain position in a unit. The applicant was promoted to major, effective upon her assignment to the TPU position, on 21 July 2008, and she was promoted because she was in a major's position, not a captain's position. She was not qualified for the CSRB, by either rank or position. Therefore, the contract, signed on 25 July 2008, was invalid. 3. 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. 4. There is no documentation to support the applicant's contention and no rationale to support the implied conclusion that those alleged circumstances would warrant the requested relief. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X___ ___X____ ____X __ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _______ _ 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) AR20080019180 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080019180 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1