2.  The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his military records to show that he was enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 2 March 1994, in pay grade E-2.

3.  The applicant states that his recruiter received his college transcripts at the time of his enlistment.  He alleges that he was advanced to pay grade E-2 effective 3 March 1994 at the recruiting center due to his college credits.

4.  On 2 March 1994, he was enlisted in the USAR, in pay grade E-1, for 8 years.  He had completed high school and was attending the Mankato State University, Mankato, Minnesota.

5.  Orders 47-7, dated 10 March 1994, ordered the applicant to initial active duty for training (IADT) effective 20 June 1994 to complete basic and advanced individual training.  Orders 54-28, dated 21 March 1994, amended Orders 47-7 to show his reporting date as 17 June 1994.  Orders 144-388, dated 27 July 1994, indicate that he was attached to Fort Huachuca, Arizona, to train in military occupational specialty 96R (Ground Surveillance Systems Operator).  All of these orders show his pay grade as E-2.

6.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) indicates that he was honorably released from active duty on 5 October 1994 under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 4 (completion of required active service).  His pay grade was shown as E-1, with the effective date of his pay grade shown as 2 March 1994.

7.  A copy of the applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record - Part II) shows that his grade was initially shown as Private E-1, with an effective date of 2 March 1994.  However, that entry was lined through and his grade was shown as Private E-2, with an effective date of 2 March 1994.  Also, it showed that the effective date for his advancement to pay grade E-3 was 20 March 1995.




8.  On 31 January 1996, the applicant was discharged from the USAR.  On 1 February 1996, he enlisted in the Army National Guard of the United States, in pay grade E-3, for 6 years.  He was advanced to pay grade E-4 effective 26 July 1996.

9.  The applicant previously applied to this Board for correction of his military records.  On 18 October 1995, he was advised that the Board could not take any action since his application did not contain his college transcripts and his DD Form 214.  With this request, he submits the foregoing documentation.

10.  His university transcript indicates that he attended the 1993-1994 Fall, 1993-1994 Winter, and 1993-1994 Spring terms at the Mankato State University.  During these terms, he completed 16, 16, and 20 quarter hours, respectively.

11.  A staff member of the Board was informally advised by the authorities at the Registar’s Office, Mankato State University, that the 1993-1994 Fall term was from 15 September 1993 to 3 December 1993; that the 1993-1994 Winter term was from 4 January 1994 to 18 March 1994; that the 1993-1994 Spring term was from 28 March 1994 to 10 June 1994; that the fiscal year 1993-1994 ran from 1 July 1993 through 30 June 1994; and that they use the quarter hour plan.

12.  Army Regulation 601-210, at table 2-3, rule E1, then in effect, provided that an individual who was a high school diploma graduate and had successfully completed 30 to 59 classroom semester hours or 45 to 89.5 quarter hours of an accredited college or university would be enlisted in pay grade E-2.  The college or university had to be listed in the Accredited Institutions of Postsecondary Education book published by the American Council on Education.

13.  Army Regulation 140-158, at paragraph 3-6, then in effect, provided that a soldier in a promotable status could be advanced to pay grade E-2 when he or she completed 



6 months of service from the date of entry on IADT.  This was provided the advancement was not deferred by the commander.  To recognize outstanding performance, commanders were authorized to advance soldiers who had at least 4 months service from the date of entry on IADT.  This was with the constraint that advancements would not cause more than 20 percent of the command’s assigned and attached pay grade E-2 strength to have less than the required 6 months time in service completed from the date of entry on IADT.  Paragraph 3-7 provided that a soldier in a promotable status would be advanced to pay grade E-3 when he or she had completed 12 months time in service and 4 months time in grade.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Based on the information obtained from the authorities at the Mankato State University, the applicant had only completed the 1993-1994 Fall term (16 quarter hours) at the time of his enlistment in the USAR on 2 March 1994.  Therefore, he is ineligible to be enlisted in pay grade E-2 or be advanced to pay grade E-2 effective 3 March 1994.  Accordingly, he was properly enlisted in pay grade E-1, and his DD Form 214 for the period ending on 5 October 1994 properly shows his pay grade as E-1.

2.  Based on the foregoing, the Orders pertaining to his IADT incorrectly show his pay grade as E-2.

3.  Based on the available evidence, the Board cannot determine if the applicant would have received an accelerated advancement to pay grade E-2.  However, since there is no evidence of disciplinary actions and he completed 36 quarter hours during the 1993-1994 Winter and 1993-1994 Spring terms at the Mankato State University, the Board concludes that he should be advanced to pay grade E-2 effective 17 October 1994, the day that he completed 4 months service from the date of his entry on IADT, as an exception to policy under Army Regulation 140-158.





4.  The Board cannot determine, with certainty, if the applicant was paid, in pay grade E-2, during any portion of the period from 2 March 1994 through 16 October 1994.  However, if he was, the Board concludes that it was through no fault of his own and that he in good faith performed the duties of that grade.  Therefore, it would be unjust to 
recoup any erroneous pay and allowances that he received at this time.  It would be appropriate to grant de facto status for the period in question.

5.  In view of the foregoing, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s military records, but only as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

	a.  by voiding any action that shows that the individual concerned was enlisted in the USAR, in pay grade E-2, on 2 March 1994;

	b.  by voiding any action that shows that he was advanced to pay grade E-2 effective 3 March 1994;

	c.  by showing that he served in a de facto status in pay grade E-2 for any portion of the period from 2 March 1994 through 16 October 1994; and

	d.  by advancing him to pay grade E-2 effective 17 October 1994, with the same date of rank, as an exception to policy under Army Regulation 140-158, paragraph 3-6, provided he is otherwise qualified.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON