2. The applicant requests that his military records be corrected to show that he was enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 November 1994 in pay grade E-4.
3. A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 5 June 1988 shows that the applicant was advanced to pay grade E-4 by his reserve unit commander.
4. On 25 August 1994 the applicant requested enlistment in the Regular Army. His DA Form 4187 shows that he was a Reserve member assigned to a control group and his rank was
PFC/E-4. Information obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) Retention Management Division is that the applicant was a reserve member in the pay grade of E-4.
5. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army in the pay grade of E-3 on 17 November 1994.
6. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the PERSCOM Retention Management Division. An official of that agency stated that the applicant should have been enlisted in the pay grade of E-4, and recommended that the applicants request be granted.
7. Army Regulation 601-210, as changed, prescribes the eligibility criteria for enlistment in the Regular Army. That regulation states, in pertinent part, that an applicant who is a current member of a reserve component in the grade of E-4 with not more than 5 years active federal service will be enlisted in pay grade E-4. (NOTE: An official of the PERSCOM Retention Management Division stated that the applicant did not have 5 years of active service at the time of his enlistment).
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The evidence of record shows that the applicant should have been enlisted in pay grade E-4. It would now be appropriate to correct his record to show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 November 1994 in pay grade E-4.
2. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicants records as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the individual concerned was enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 November 1994 in pay grade E-4.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
CHAIRPERSON
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058405C070421
On 3 December 1998, the soldier submitted a DA Form 4187 requesting retirement on 1 September 1999, which reflects that he intended to retire with 22 years of AFS. The opinion further states that the applicant was aware for over 4 months before retirement that he would not have 22 years of AFS at his requested retirement date, and while soldiers are authorized to request change or withdrawal of an approved retirement, there is no evidence that the applicant requested to change or withdraw...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199705383
Upon his return from leave on 22 September he was informed by the chief of Sergeant Major (SGM) assignments at the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) that he was being removed from the CSM assignment in Hawaii; that he should submit a request (DA Form 4187) to voluntarily withdraw from the CSM program, or barring that, he would remain at Fort Leonard Wood in order to appear before an administrative board, which process would take months. The EMPD director stated that PERSCOM had been...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010493
The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for correction of his records to show he was retired under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) instead of discharged under the Early Release Program Special Separation Benefit (SSB). Military Personnel (MILPER) Message Number 93-164, dated 20 April 1993, prescribed eligibility requirements and application procedures for early retirement for Regular Army Soldiers. The May 1994 PERSCOM message implementing the Fiscal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052223C070420
PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 6 November 2001 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001052223 The applicant requests his records be corrected to show his date of rank (DOR) to pay grade E-7 as 1 March 1994. Based on his enlistment in the RA on 12 August 1999, his pay grade E-7 DOR should be adjusted to 21 November 1997 in accordance with Army Regulation 600-20 (Army Command Policy).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076592C070215
The Member of Congress was further informed that the applicant could get out of the Army "based on an unfulfilled enlistment contract or he can choose to accept his enlistment without the BSSRB." In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) Retention Management Division, which opined that the applicant had been improperly informed that he would receive a BSSRB because he was not eligible and did not meet the criteria...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003082299C070212
At the time the promotion was revoked, ARPERSCOM recommended that the applicant’s request for de facto status be granted in accordance with regulatory guidance. It states that when orders are published revoking an advancement or promotion, the soldier's service in the higher grade may be determined to have been de facto so as to allow the soldier to retain pay and allowances received in that status. In view of the facts of this case, and based on the de facto status determination and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709735C070209
The applicant, in his application dated 4 September 1997, states that he was advanced to pay grade E-4 while a member of the Michigan Army National Guard (MIARNG), so he should have been enlisted in the higher pay grade. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 September 1997 in pay grade E-3. As the applicants advancement was unknown at the time of his enlistment, PERSCOM recommended correcting his records to show that he was promoted to pay grade E-4 effective 4 September 1997, the date he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709735
The applicant, in his application dated 4 September 1997, states that he was advanced to pay grade E-4 while a member of the Michigan Army National Guard (MIARNG), so he should have been enlisted in the higher pay grade. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 September 1997 in pay grade E-3. As the applicant’s advancement was unknown at the time of his enlistment, PERSCOM recommended correcting his records to show that he was promoted to pay grade E-4 effective 4 September 1997, the date he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019457
Through his Member of Congress, the applicant states: * he is asking for reconsideration of a previous ABCMR decision because the evidence he previously presented was misinterpreted * when he first appealed to the ABCMR, his application received an incorrect advisory opinion from an official in the Retired Pay Branch at the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) * this official provided an advisory opinion full of false statements, as shown by both previous and newly-submitted evidence * he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080230C070215
In so doing, they stated that the applicant’s MOS (98C) did not qualify for a BSSRB and offered that he could request separation based on an unfulfilled enlistment contract. PERSCOM again stated that the applicant could request separation based on an unfulfilled enlistment contract. The applicant met his enlistment obligations in full and the Army should honor the promise made to the applicant in his enlistment contract by awarding him the BSSRB as an exception to policy.