2. The applicant requests that his military records be corrected to show that he was enlisted in pay grade E-4 rather than pay grade E-3.
3. He states that he was an E-4 when he was a member of the Oklahoma Army National Guard which was reflected in his records, but when he enlisted in the Regular Army he was enlisted as an E-3. He claims that his contract was changed because a wrong enlistment rule was applied to him.
4. The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years from the Oklahoma National Guard on 8 February 1996. Prior to his enlistment, he had been promoted to E-4 (promotion order 5-1, dated 11 October 1995).
5. In an advisory opinion to this Board, the US Total Army Personnel Command determined that the applicant had been enlisted in the proper grade (E-3); however, upon reconsideration it was determined that an incorrect US Army Recruiting Command message change to the regulation was cited which was not applicable to the applicant. Therefore, the applicant could have been enlisted in the higher grade had he provided the proper documentation (the E-4 promotion order) at the time of his enlistment.
6. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment program, provides in pertinent part that current or former members of a reserve component who have completed initial active duty for training and have been awarded a military occupational specialty and enlist within 12 months from the date released from active duty, the enlistment pay grade will be the grade held at the time of release from initial active duty for training. It provides further that, unit commanders, upon verification that a soldier is authorized the advanced promotion will promote the soldier. The effective date and date of rank, will be the date the commander authorizes the promotion.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant has provided the proper documentation to support his enlistment in the grade of E-4 on 8 February 1996. Accordingly, his grade and DOR should be adjusted to that date and he should be granted back-pay and allowances effective as of that date.
2. In view of the foregoing, the applicants records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:
a. by showing that the individual concerned was enlisted in grade E-4 on 8 February 1996; and
b. by showing that he is authorized to receive any and all back-pay and allowances due him since 8 February 1996.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
CHAIRPERSON
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072743C070403
On 20 August 1997, the OKARNG issued a NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) honorably discharging the applicant from the OKARNG as a SGT, pay grade E-5, by reason of the individual's request. The investigation further substantiated that: the applicant submitted false information on his application for Army National Guard federal recognition in January 1987 by stating “No” to the question, “Have you ever been arrested or convicted by a civil court of other than minor...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005653
Army Regulation 135-180, paragraph 2-11c states that the Retired Activities Directorate, ARPERCEN [Army Reserve Personnel Center currently known as the Human Resources Command-St. Louis] will screen each retirement applicants record to determine the highest grade held by him or her during his or her military service. The evidence of record shows the applicant was reduced to SSG, E-6 with an effective date of 1 October 1988. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085771C070212
The applicant provides a copy of a Summons (OKARNG Form 96-1), dated 12 September 1995. In the opinion of the Board, the administrative error that resulted in the late receipt of the summons by the applicant and the chain of command’s failure to respond positively to the applicant’s request for a postponement effectively denied the applicant rights to which he was entitled under the OCMJ. Insofar as records of the Oklahoma Army National Guard are concerned, the Board recommends that The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605617C070209
On 23 April 1996, a member of Congress was advised by the PERSCOM authorities that the applicants request for an extension on active duty beyond his mandatory release date of 29 February 1996 was not favorably considered; that, as a two time nonselect for promotion to CW3, he was required by law to separate from active duty; that, although a MMRB recommended the applicant for reclassification as a supply warrant officer, this action was taken 4 months after he had been a nonselect for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000892C070205
Michael J. Flynn | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests, in effect, that his enlistment contract be voided with reinstatement in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group and promoted to lieutenant colonel, based on the results of a special selection board (SSB). As a result, the Board recommends that all the State of Oklahoma and Department of the Army records of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065115C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to remove nonjudicial punishment (NJP) dated 5 February 1996, and a Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER), dated 9 March 1996 from his record, and immediate reinstatement onto active duty. Army Regulation 15-185 establishes procedures for making application, and the consideration of applications, for the correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through this Board. DISCUSSION : Considering all the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088745C070403
As of the date of his application to this Board, the applicant was still serving as a member of the VAARNG. DA policy established that ANCOC resident course credit would be granted for completion of the ANCOC by correspondence course on or before 1 June 1987. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant completed the ANCOC by correspondence course on 3 February 1987.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023269
The applicant states, in effect, that at the time of each erroneous reduction in grade he had made the promotion list for the next higher grade and he was subsequently told that be would be placed before a stand-by board but his unit was called to active duty. A review of the available records failed to show any evidence to indicate that the applicant appeared before a promotion selection board for promotion to the pay grade of E-6, that he attained promotion list standing, or that he would...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016436
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests extension of Federal Recognition as a Warrant Officer One (WO1), effective 21 February 2007 and correction of his promotion and Federal Recognition effective date for Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2) to reflect 21 February 2009. As a result, the Board recommends that State Army National Guard records and Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078424C070215
The applicant states that he should have never been coded as a "No Show" for ANCOC. It states that a soldier who accepts a promotion with the condition that he or she must enroll in, and successfully complete, a specified NCOES course, and fails to meet those conditions, or is subsequently denied enrollment, or becomes an academic failure, or does not meet graduation requirements, or is declared a "No Show," will be reduced to the grade and rank held prior to the conditional promotion. The...