APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his enlistment contract dated 29 March 1995 to show that he enlisted in the pay grade of E-5 instead of pay grade E-4.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that because his separation document (DD Form 214) dated 4 February 1994 did not reflect his promotion to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 February 1994, he was not properly enlisted in the pay grade of E-5 when he enlisted on 29 March 1995. He goes on to state that he was informed that the necessary corrections would take place at his first duty station.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
After serving 5 years, 4 months, and 20 days of total active service, the applicant was honorably released from active duty in the pay grade of E-5 and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) on 4 February 1994. The applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 February 1994 and his separation documents did not reflect his promotion at the time of his separation from the service.
On 29 March 1995 the applicant enlisted for a period of 2 years in the pay grade of E-4.
On 26 October 1995 the Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (EREC) corrected the applicants DD Form 214 dated 4 February 1994 to reflect his correct rank at the time of his separation.
In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). It opined that had the applicants separation documents correctly reflected his rank as an E-5, he would not have been allowed to enlist. Consequently, the applicant was allowed to reenlist in the highest grade available for his military occupational specialty at the time, based on a waiver. The PERSCOM recommended that his request be denied because he would not have been granted authorization to enlist in the pay grade of E-5.
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 aware that he was being enlisted in the pay grade of E-4 at the time he enlisted. Consequently, if he did not agree with the conditions of his enlistment he could have declined to do so.
2. Inasmuch as the applicant would have been denied the opportunity to enlist had it been known that he was an E-5 at the time he was separated from the service, there is no basis to approve his request.
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 the aforementioned requirement.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants 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
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9507779C070209
He met the cut-off score for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 on 15 November 1994 (for 1 December 1994 promotions), but was unable to execute an extension of service until 10 January 1995, that was necessary to meet the service remaining requirement (1 year of remaining service) for promotion. The PERSCOM recommended that his request be denied. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9510285C070209
In effect, the applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) of 5 August 1994 be changed to show his pay grade as E-3, and that his record show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 May 1995 in the pay grade of E-4. He was promoted to pay grade E-4 on 8 May 1995 and he enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 May 1995. That official also stated that the applicant should have been enlisted in pay grade E-3 based on his request for Regular Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605700C070209
He continues by stating that he was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 before he retired and therefore should have retired in that grade. The applicant, while serving as a recruiter in the pay grade of E-6, submitted a request for early retirement (15-year retirement) on 9 August 1994 under the fiscal year 1995 VERP. The applicant applied for early retirement under the VERP approximately 5 months before he was promoted and his request was approved by the Department for retirement in the pay...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9507786C070209
He further states that he met the cut-off score for promotion to E-5 on 1 January 1995 but could not be promoted to the pay grade of E-6 until he completed PLDC on 14 March 1995. Not only could he have requested a waiver of the PLDC requirement in the event that he met the cut-off score while deployed, he very possibly could have requested attendance at an earlier date. The applicant was aware of the requirement to complete PLDC prior to promotion, and there is no evidence to suggest that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511829C070209
The applicant requests that her records be corrected to reflect that she was authorized to enlist in the pay grade of E-2 and that she is entitled to back pay and allowances from the date of her enlistment until 9 May 1995. The applicant states that at the time of her enlistment she did not have a copy of her college transcripts and therefore had to enlist in the pay grade of E-1. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by amending...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508806C070209
The applicant states that two other soldiers received an exception to policy, one because he did not have a seat for the May 1993 class; and the other after attending the May 1993 class, because he was not afforded the opportunity to attend BNCOC prior to the effective date of his promotion. On 17 November 1992 the applicants commanding officer requested an exception to the policy linking completion of BNCOC to promotion in order for the applicant to be promoted to pay grade E-6. On 16...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508802C070209
The applicant states that he submitted a request for promotion point revaluation (DA Form 3355-E) to his personnel administrative center (PAC) on 3 November 1994 to increase his promotion point total from 736 to 764. The applicant requested that the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) grant an exception to policy and that he be promoted to Staff Sergeant. Notwithstanding the PERSCOM opinion, the applicants reevaluated promotion point score of 764 should have been received and processed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605617C070209
On 23 April 1996, a member of Congress was advised by the PERSCOM authorities that the applicants request for an extension on active duty beyond his mandatory release date of 29 February 1996 was not favorably considered; that, as a two time nonselect for promotion to CW3, he was required by law to separate from active duty; that, although a MMRB recommended the applicant for reclassification as a supply warrant officer, this action was taken 4 months after he had been a nonselect for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075716C070403
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, the applicant requests that his records be corrected to show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 June 2001 in pay grade E-5. That change states in pertinent part that an applicant separated from the Regular Army in grade E-5 with not more than 12 years total active service and who enlists within 24 months following separation, or who is a current member of a Reserve Component (after Regular Army service), will be enlisted in the grade of sergeant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091590C070212
The applicant requests, in effect, promotion to captain with a date of rank based on the 1995 Reserve Components Selection Board (RCSB). Based on the required 4 years time in grade, his promotion eligibility date (PED) for captain was 14 October 1994. An officer selected by an SSB would be entitled to the same date of rank as if the officer had been recommended for promotion to the grade by the mandatory board that should have considered the officer.