APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the pay grade on his enlistment in the USAR be corrected from E-4 to E-5.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was unaware that he was enlisting in pay grade E-4. He had been rushed through his USAR enlistment processing and was told that he was being assigned to the USAR unit as an E-5 in an E-4 position. He had been promoted to pay grade E-5 in the Army National Guard (ARNG) approximately a year prior to his enlistment in the USAR and would not have accepted the enlistment in the USAR if he had known it would mean that he would lose his promotion.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Texas Army National Guard (TXARNG) in pay grade E-4 on 30 March 1988 with prior active and reserve service. He was promoted to pay grade E-5 on 1 September 1991.
On 24 September 1992 he enlisted in the USAR at the age of 46 in pay grade E-4 for 6 years.
In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve (OCAR). The OCAR stated that a guardsman can only be enlisted for a reserve vacancy which is in his grade or lower; that he cannot be enlisted for a higher graded vacancy. Therefore, the applicant was properly enlisted in pay grade E-4 since the vacancy he was filling was that grade. However, the OCAR stated that it appears that the applicant did not understand that he was taking a reduction in grade and recommends approval of the applicants request.
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, it is concluded:
1. In order to justify a 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.
2. The Board does not accept that the applicant was unaware that he was enlisting in pay grade E-4. His enlistment contract clearly shows what grade he was enlisting for, and the applicant was of the age and had the years of service to understand an enlistment contract.
3. The advisory opinion from the OCAR has been carefully considered. However, there is no indication that there was any misunderstanding in the applicants enlistment. Therefore, the Board does not accept the OCARs recommendation as to grant the applicants request would be giving him a benefit not afforded others in like situations.
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 | 9507774C070209
In response to a former request by the applicant, this Board directed that the applicant be considered by a STAB. Army Regulation 140-30, paragraph 7-1, states that officers in the AGR program may be selected for promotion regardless of his or her current position but will not be promoted until the officer is assigned to a position requiring the higher grade. The FTSMC stated that there were only a total of 142 colonel positions in the AGR program worldwide in 1995, with far more officers...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056808C070420
In January 1997, when the applicant was "conditionally selected" and ranked # 1 on the Order of Merit List (OML) for engineer duty, regulations required his "accompanying" waiver request be immediately forwarded for endorsement, recommendation, and DCSPER approval. Paragraph 3-3a(3) of the regulation states that the CAR has the responsibility to provide a recommendation for active duty through the appropriate selection process. The FTSMD advisory opinion further states that the accession...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060100C070421
On 20 December 1989, a panel of this Board denied the applicant’s request to have his records corrected to show he was promoted to the pay grade of E-9, effective 1 March 1983. In effect, this decision was based on the fact that the Board disagreed with the ARPERSCOM position that there was no evidence to show the applicant was reduced to SFC/E-7 at the time he voluntarily entered active duty in that rank and pay grade. Further, there is no evidence contained in the record that shows that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605048C070209
On 20 June 1991 the applicant was promoted to Sergeant pay grade E-5 and awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 73C20 (finance NCO). That official stated, in effect, that Army Regulation 140-158, paragraph 4-6, required a soldier to be qualified in the duty MOS (DMOS) and be in the position authorized a Sergeant E-5 in order to be promoted. An official from the OCAR, in an informal opinion, stated that the revocation of the order promoting the applicant was indeed correct - that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077080C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was promoted to SSG/E-6 and was separated from the USAR in the pay grade of E6 on 26 August 1996. She was later released from the NCARNG in the pay grade of E-4 and continued to serve in the USAR until discharged on 18 August 1998.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072512C070403
On 5 March 1997, the Chief, Assistance and Investigations Division, USAREC, prepared a memorandum to the OCAR requesting that an exception to policy be granted and that the applicant be paid the prior service enlistment bonus of $5,000.00. On 8 April 1997, the Chief, Enlisted Accessions Division, ODCSPER, disapproved the request for exception to policy and denied the applicant payment of the prior service enlistment bonus. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004875
The applicant requests retroactive unit vacancy promotion to captain (CPT) in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) with back pay and allowances as well as retirement point credit. The applicant provides: * 2009 USAR Appointment memorandum * ARNG Retirement Points History Statement * Email exchange * BSN-STRAP Contract * National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 62E (Application for Federal Recognition as an ARNG Officer or Warrant Officer and Appointment as a Reserve Commissioned Officer or Warrant Officer...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008874
In order for him to be re-appointed as a Medical Service Corps officer and in accordance with Army Regulation 135-101, the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) recruiter in the state would have been required to prepare an initial appointment packet to be boarded at USAREC. The evidence submitted by the NGB in their advisory opinion shows that at the time of his appointment on 1 October 2000, USAREC did not cause the applicant to be properly boarded and federally recognized in his appointment...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014720
He claims under the policy contained in Office of the Chief, Army Reserve (OCAR) Memorandum, dated 18 April 2008, which was in effect at the time, having made the LTC promotion list as a mobilized officer serving on active duty, he should have been promoted to LTC upon being matched against a position of like rank and grade. This official indicated the applicant was considered for promotion by the FY07 LTC RCSB that convened on 11 September 2007, and was promoted to LTC in orders, dated 26...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012031
He also requests this SSB review his promotion file as it was prepared by the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve (OCAR), General Officer Management Office (GOMO) for presentation to the 2005 General Officer Assignment Advisory Board (GOAAB), the most recent board that did not consider him due to his pending physical evaluation board (PEB) appeal. The applicant states that he was notified by the 12 September 2003 non-duty related PEB that he was medically unfit to perform his duties as a U.S....