APPLICANT REQUESTS: Retroactive promotion to the pay grade of E-5 effective 1 January 1993.
APPLICANT STATES: That her recruiter told her at the time of her enlistment that even though she was a licensed practical nurse (LPN), there were no openings for her to enlist as a clinical specialist (91C). He further advised her to request a change in her military occupational specialty (MOS) once she arrived at her first permanent duty station. She goes on to state that she subsequently discovered that other LPNs have entered the service in the pay grade of E-4 and were promoted to the pay grade of E-5 within 90 days. Consequently, she submitted her request for reclassification from the MOS of a personnel management specialist (75C) to MOS 91C. She further states that the Department of the Army determined that an injustice had occurred in her case and approved her request for reclassification without any further training. She also states that not only should she have been allowed to enlist as a 91C, she also should have been allowed to enter the service under the Bonus Extension and Retraining (BEAR) Program, which would have afforded her an accelerated promotion to the pay grade of E-5. In support of her application she submits a copy of her transcripts and diploma.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She enlisted on 17 July 1992 for a period of 4 years and for training in MOS 75C. She was authorized to enlist in the pay grade of E-3 in accordance with Army Regulation 601-210, table 2-3, rule E.
On 18 October 1994, the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) approved the applicants request for reclassification from MOS 75C to MOS 91C and directed that no further training was required in the LPN field.
The applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 in MOS 91C on 23 June 1995, upon graduation from the primary leadership development course.
In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (ODCSPER). It opined, in effect, that during the period in which the applicant enlisted, MOS 91C was not available for enlistment and that the applicant had the option at the time of her enlistment, not to accept the MOS she was being offered. Furthermore, had MOS 91C been available for enlistment, she would have been offered that option. The ODCSPER also opined that the applicants reclassification was not approved by the Department because it believed an injustice had been done, but simply because she was in an overage MOS and applied for reclassification into an MOS for which there was then a vacancy. The ODCSPER recommended that her request be denied.
Army Regulation 601-280 provides the policies, procedures, and administrative instructions for the BEAR program, which is designed to assist in force alignment. It allows eligible soldiers an opportunity to extend their enlistment for formal retraining in a shortage MOS that is presently in the selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) program and upon completion of retraining be awarded the new primary MOS, reenlist, and receive an SRB in the newly awarded MOS. The objectives of the BEAR program are to entice highly qualified soldiers in the pay grade of E-6 and below, who are currently serving in an overstrength or balanced MOS to migrate into a critically short SRB MOS. The BEAR program is not open for personnel enlisting into the service.
Army Regulation 601-210 provides eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army and the USAR. Table 2-3, rule E of that regulation states, in pertinent part, that persons enlisting in the Regular Army or USAR who have completed 60 or more semester hours of an accredited college or university may be enlisted in the pay grade of E-3.
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 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 applicant was properly enlisted in the pay grade of E-3 in MOS 75C at the time of her enlistment.
3. The applicants contention that she was improperly advised that she could not enlist in MOS 91C is without merit. Since no vacancy in MOS 91C was available at the time of her enlistment, she had the option of enlisting in MOS 75C or waiting until MOS 91C became available. She chose to accept MOS 75C and request reclassification at a later date.
4. The applicants contention that she should have been enlisted under the BEAR program in the pay grade of E-4 is also without merit. The BEAR program is not offered to personnel enlisting in the Army.
5. 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
David R. Kinneer
Executive Secretary
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064522C070421
The opinion also states that the applicant was enlisted in pay grade E-3 on 21 May 2001 in error and should have entered on active duty in the rank of SPC based on Table 7-1 of Army Regulation 601-210. It states, in pertinent part, that personnel who enlist the ACASP in MOS 91C will be enlisted in the pay grade of E-4 with subsequent promotion to the pay grade of E-5 provided they meet the established requirements of the regulation. In accordance with Chapter 7 of Army Regulation 601-210,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9510227C070209
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: On 15 September 1987 the applicant submitted a request for Regular Army reenlistment based on his approved request for reclassification and approval to attend an Army service school for training in MOS 91C from 1 November 1987 through 14 December 1988. It opined, in effect, that the applicant attended training under a reclassification action and that he was not eligible for entry into the BEAR program due to his time in service. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199711631C070209
The applicant states that the documents she submits with her application show that she should have been promoted to pay grade E-5 in September 1992. The applicants military records show that she enlisted in the Army Reserve for eight years in pay grade E-1 on 29 May 1990. Her enlistment documents show that she enlisted for MOS 91C, licensed practical nurse, an authorized medical skill enlistment option under the specialized training for Army Reserve Readiness (STARR) enlistment program.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607659C070209
The applicant states that upon completion of his Bonus Extension and Retraining (BEAR) Program training in MOS 91C, he was offered the option to reenlist in the pay grade of E-4 the day before graduation. On 6 December 1991 the applicant reenlisted for the first time for a period of 4 years with no entitlement to an SRB. The PERSCOM recommended that the applicants reenlistment contract of 6 December 1991 be corrected to reflect that he reenlisted on 1 July 1989 for a period of 5 years...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199711631
The applicant states that the documents she submits with her application show that she should have been promoted to pay grade E-5 in September 1992. The applicant’s military records show that she enlisted in the Army Reserve for eight years in pay grade E-1 on 29 May 1990. Her enlistment documents show that she enlisted for MOS 91C, licensed practical nurse, an authorized medical skill enlistment option under the specialized training for Army Reserve Readiness (STARR) enlistment program.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059883C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : That she enlisted under the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program (ACASP). 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9206518
APPLICANT REQUESTS : That the effective date of her promotion from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-5 be corrected to 1 January 1988 and that she be given the difference in pay for the time she served before orders were published promoting her to pay grade E-5. However, finance office will not pay her the difference in pay for the duty she performed prior to the date of the promotion orders. On 7 December 1989 the addenda to the applicant’s enlistment contract were altered to show that she...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062893C070421
In support of her application, the applicant submits a letter of grade determination, a copy of her enlistment contract, promotion orders, the commander’s recommendation for promotion, certificate of medical proficiency training, a copy of her license as a vocational nurse, and a portion of Table 7-1 of Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Reserve Enlistment Program). The applicant enlisted on 21 September 2000 under the ACASP in the pay grade of E-3 for MOS 91C (Practical Nurse). ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088487C070403
She acknowledged that she reentered active duty in the Regular Army 34 days after she was released from active duty, that she did not have a break in service, and was told that unless she returned to MOS 79R she would be reduced two grades and had to reclassify in either MOS 92Y or MOS 92G. He cited that the Chief, Reclassification Branch, PERSCOM stated, "An exception to policy was granted to allow the soldier reentry into active Army service in 92Y at SGT [sergeant]. They further pointed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071527C070402
He stated that she met all the requirements of Army Regulation 601-210, and should have been recommended for promotion on the completion of her training as stated in her enlistment contract. In a 17 June 2002 advisory opinion, the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-1 recommended that the applicant be retroactively promoted to the rank of sergeant with a date or rank of 18 January 2001 and that she receive all due pay and allowances from that date. The applicant’s present commander and...