APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his date of rank (DOR) be adjusted.
APPLICANT STATES: That when he enlisted the wrong rule was applied in granting him credit for college courses he had completed. He contends that had all of his college credits been considered he would have an earlier DOR and received an accelerated promotion to pay grade E-4.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the USAR delayed entry program on 23 January 1991 and entered on active duty for 4 years on 19 February 1991 in pay grade E-3.
The applicant enlisted under a program that authorized a pay grade higher than E-1 at the time of enlistment. Entry at the higher grade was based upon the successful completion of a specified number of college credits. Specifically, he was enlisted in pay grade E-3 under rule E-2 which provided that since he was credited with thirty to fifty-nine semester hours of college credits he could be enlisted in pay grade E-3. No other provisions were applicable under this enlistment rule.
The applicant believes, however, that since he had over 90 semester hours of college credit, he should have been enlisted under rule E-4. That rule would not only have permitted his enlistment in pay grade E-3 but also provided for advancement to pay grade E-4 after 6 months of continuous active duty.
In an opinion (COPY ATTACHED) to this Board, the US Total Army Personnel Command indicates that the applicant was properly enlisted in pay grade E-3 under the correct rule and regulation in effect at the time of his enlistment. The enlistment rule he cites is from a regulation that had been superseded and was not applicable at the time of his enlistment.
Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program, the regulation governing his enlistment, was changed effective 14 February 1990. The 11 September 1987 edition of the regulation, under which he contends he enlisted, was superseded on 14 February 1990. The revised regulation also provided for enlistment in pay grade E-3 for enlistees with sixty or more semesters hours of college credit, but did not provide for subsequent advancement to pay grade E-4 after 6 months of continuous active duty.
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 properly accessed into the active Army in pay grade E-3 in accordance with the correct enlistment rule and regulation in effect at the time. The regulatory guidance then in effect does not support his request for adjustment in his DOR.
2. It appears that his confusion concerning the regulatory rule under which he was enlisted stems from his applying the provisions of a outdated regulation to his situation.
3. In view of the foregoing, there appears to be 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 | CY1996 | 9609203C070209
That official later agreed, during informal coordination, that that opinion was in error, and that the applicants effective date of advancement and date of rank should be 12 December 1990, the date he enlisted in the Army National Guard. The applicant should have been enlisted in the Army National Guard on 12 December 1990 in pay grade E-3. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned enlisted in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021233
The DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing - Armed Forces of the United States) series of forms completed at the time of the applicant's enlistment in the USAR show she was authorized enlistment in pay grade E-3 in accordance with Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program), Table 2-3, Rule E. 6. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for correction of her record to show she was promoted to SGT/E-5 or to show she was appointed as...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016002
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests, in effect, that his date of rank (DOR) for promotion to private first class (PFC) of 10 October 2013 be backdated to the date of his enlistment on 10 October 2012. The evidence of record shows at the time of his enlistment, the applicant had completed 79.5 semester hours.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610380C070209
The applicants records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 November 1995 as a private (pay grade E-1). Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program, provides that an applicant who has completed 60 or more classroom semester hours at an accredited college or university shall be enlisted in pay grade PFC. In accordance with regulations in effect at the time, the applicant had completed the requisite number of college courses to be enlisted in pay...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9109333
The applicant was advanced to pay grade E-3 on 20 June 1990 under the provisions of Army Regulation 601-210, table 2-3, rule E. His DOR on the promotion instrument (DA Form 4187) is 23 January 1990. Paragraph 7-5 states that the DOR and effective date of promotion will be the same. The applicant’s effective date of advancement to pay grade E-3 should be 23 January 1990.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008656
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). He had completed 101 credit hours which entitled him to enlist in pay grade E-3. The applicant was entitled to submit documentation to his personnel officer within 6 months of his enlistment for advancement to a higher pay grade than E-3; however, there is no evidence and the applicant has provided none, to show that he did so.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076037C070215
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. PERSCOM stated that a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9609631C070209
Paragraph 2-20f states, in effect, that an applicant who has successfully completed 60 or more classroom semester hours of an accredited college or university will be enlisted in pay grade E-3. The applicant should have been promoted to pay grade E-3 on 16 June 1995, the date she entered basic training, under the provisions of Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 2-20l. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicants records as...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9508835C070209
She states that when she enlisted she had more than 30 college credits and should have been enlisted in the grade of PV2. The applicants records show that she enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 November 1994 as a PV1. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program, provides that an applicant who has completed 30 or more classroom semester hours at an accredited college or university shall be enlisted in grade PV2.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081743C070215
The applicant’s military records show that she enlisted in the Army Reserve on 12 October 2001 for a period of 8 years, in the pay grade of E-1. The applicant's DD Form 1966/1 (Record of Military Processing – Armed Forces of the United States) shows she enlisted in the DEP on 12 October 2001 in the pay grade of E-1. PERSCOM stated that a review of the records indicated that the applicant enlisted on 3 January 2002 in the pay grade of E-1.