Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 1997005027
Original file (1997005027.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
2. The applicant requests his Bar to Re-enlistment be revoked and that he be able to re-enlist in the Army.
3. The applicant states, in effect, that he was stationed in Nuernberg, Germany as a 91C (Practical Nurse). He volunteered to transfer to another unit in order to go to Saudi Arabia but had to be classified as a 91B (Medical Specialist) which was his second MOS. Upon returning from Saudi Arabia his unit was chosen for deactivation and he was assigned to MEDDAC, Ft. Riley. He was allowed a 30 day leave due to wife’s post-partum condition and to allow his family to travel with him. Wife is a German National who spoke no English with two small children.

 4. Records available to the Board show that the applicant was born on
5 February 1959 in Wiesbaden, Germany. On 19 March 1976 he enlisted in the Army Reserve and was awarded MOS 84B10 (Still Photo Specialist). On
28 June 1976, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army, in MOS 91B10 (Medical Specialist). On 27 June 1980, applicant was honorably discharged and transferred to the Army Reserve. He again enlisted in the Regular Army on
28 April 1981, for 3 years in MOS 91C10 (Patient Care Specialist). On
28 April 1984, applicant transferred to the Army Reserve until 6 October 1985 and was honorably discharged. On 4 November 1985 he enlisted in the Regular Army for the 3 rd time, was promoted to paygrade E-6 on 2 November 1987, and was discharged on 27 July 1992 with an Honorable Discharge. Applicant served a total of 13 years, 8 months, and 24 days of total active federal service.
5. On 16 August 1991, during in-processing at Ft. Riley, applicant was informed of a new regulation requiring all 91Cs to have their Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) license by October 1992 or be re-classified. Applicant made arrangements, with the state of Kansas, to take the test in April 1992 to allow time for military school transcripts to arrive and also because this was the next available test date. The LPN test was only offered twice a year, April and August.

6. On 24 January 1992, the applicant received his 1 st counseling statement, and a flagging action was initiated for not having a current LPN license.

7. On 27 January 1992, applicant received another counseling statement for not having a current LPN license.

8. Applicant alleges, in effect, that he experienced conflicts with the Chief Wardmaster (a MSG), it seems she had problems with the applicant being originally from Germany and therefore wanted to remove applicant from his duty position. However, the Head Nurse (a LTC) supported the applicant’s efforts which was resented by the Chief Wardmaster.

9. Applicant then, after alleged threats of court-martial and Leavenworth from the Chief Wardmaster and being refused an appointment with the Company Commander, went to the local Inspector General (IG). The IG suggested that the applicant speak to the Staff Judge Advocate who allegedly assured the applicant that his command could do nothing to him because there was nothing derogatory in his 201 file.

10. On 18 February 1992, applicant received a Letter of Appreciation from the Head Nurse of the Ward (a LTC) for being awarded “Ward of the Month” due to the applicant’s initial efforts in reorganizing the ward completely.

11. On 26 April 1992, after receiving orders, he reported to the Separation Transfer Point where his records were screened and then asked and scheduled to re-enlist by a Major.

12. On 27 April 1992, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand from his Company Commander for inconsistencies in his personnel file. Applicant’s record did not support the basis for the Letter of Reprimand because applicant’s social security number is consistent throughout his record, civil court documents dated 8 October 1979, indicate applicant’s name change was legal and a second court document indicates the correct spelling of the applicant’s name. Applicant was awarded both MOS 91B and 91C and served in both.

 13. On 4 May 1992, flag is removed from records. On 13 May 1992
applicant returns to the Separation Transfer Point and is told that the flag had been removed and he can still re-enlist.
14. On 14 May 1992, a Bar to Re-enlistment is imposed on the applicant for the following items: 24 Jan 92, Counseling, Flag imposed, no license;
27 Jan 92, Counseling, No Nursing license; 28 Jan 92, Memorandum, No Nursing license; 27 Apr 92, Letter of Reprimand.
15. Army Regulation (AR) 601-280, para 6-5(i), in effect, states that after placing an approved Bar to Reenlistment certificate in the soldier’s 201 file, the company, detachment, or comparable commander of the unit to which the soldier is assigned, or attached for duty and administration, will continue documented evaluation of the soldier. Approved bars to reenlistment will be reviewed by the proper unit commander at least each 6 months after the date of approval, and 30 days before the soldier’s scheduled departure from the unit or separation from the service.

 CONCLUSIONS :

 1. Applicant received two counseling statements in January 1992 before he was able to take the LPN license test in April 1992. It is noted that he was not required to be licensed until October 1992.
2. Applicant received a Letter of Appreciation during same time period of counseling statements.

3. There does not appear to be a basis for the applicant’s 27 April 1992 LOR as his records appear to support his name correction, MOS(s) and SSN.

 4. Applicant received Bar to Reenlistment right before he was scheduled to
re-enlist. The Bar to Reenlistment cited the two counseling statements (3 days apart), a 28 January 1992 Memorandum (no record of in applicant’s records) and the Letter of Reprimand. There was no further documentation of evaluation of the soldier per AR 601-280, para 6-5(i).
5. Records available to this Board indicate that applicant had superior ratings on his EERs before arriving at Ft Riley.

6. It appears the Bar to Reenlistment (containing the two counseling statements, the 28 January 1992 Memorandum and the Letter of Reprimand) action taken by his chain of command was unwarranted since no significant evidence exists to back up chain of command’s allegations towards the applicant.

 7. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records, but only as recommended below.

 RECOMMENDATION :

 1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the Bar to Re-enlistment, dated 14 May 1992, Letter of Reprimand, dated 27 April 1992, Counseling Statement, dated 24 January 1992, Flagging Action dated 24 January 1992, Counseling Statement, dated
27 January 1992, and Lifting of Flag Action, dated 4 May 1992 be removed from applicant’s records.

2. That item 27 on DD Form 214 be changed to reflect RE-Code 1A.

3. That applicant be allowed to re-enlist into the Regular Army in the paygrade of E-6 within 120 days of this action being approved providing he is physically and morally qualified.
BOARD VOTE :

GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

 GRANT FORMAL HEARING

 DENY APPLICATION




                 
                  CHAIRPERSON

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 1997005027C070209

    Original file (1997005027C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 24 January 1992, the applicant received his 1st counseling statement, and a flagging action was initiated for not having a current LPN license. Applicant received two counseling statements in January 1992 before he was able to take the LPN license test in April 1992. The Bar to Reenlistment cited the two counseling statements (3 days apart), a 28 January 1992 Memorandum (no record of in applicant’s records) and the Letter of Reprimand.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004477

    Original file (20080004477.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show he enlisted in March 1989 in the rank and grade of Sergeant (SGT), E-5. In any case, there is no evidence of record to show the applicant ever served in the 91C2O position that he would have served in had he enlisted under the ACASP and later been appointed an E-5. At this point in time, there is insufficient evidence to show the applicant was unaware of a possible error in his enlistment grade while he was on active duty, when a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605182C070209

    Original file (9605182C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    Consequently, she submitted her request for reclassification from the MOS of a personnel management specialist (75C) to MOS 91C. 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. The applicant was properly enlisted in the pay grade of E-3 in MOS 75C at the time of her enlistment.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130022322

    Original file (20130022322.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Her DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows she was promoted to PFC/E-3 in the USAR on 10 January 1985. The applicant enlisted in the ARNG on 15 February 1990 in the rank/grade of SPC/E-4. After having accumulated over 16 unexcused absences, her chain of command declared her an unsatisfactory participant and reduced her to PFC/E-3 for inefficiency.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064522C070421

    Original file (2001064522C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2001 | 2001063421C070421

    Original file (2001063421C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 10 August 1996, the applicant requested transfer to the USAR and on 9 October 1996 he enlisted in the USAR in pay grade E-4. Orders dated 3 May 1999 ordered the applicant to active duty in an AGR status with a report date of 14 June 1999 to the 671 st Float Bridge Company in Portland, OR. Paragraph 8-2e states that a SGT must be a graduate of the PLDC Active Army (PLDC-AC) or the PLDC Reserve Component (PLDC-RC).

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071527C070402

    Original file (2002071527C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060935C070421

    Original file (2001060935C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The first contested NCOER, for the rating period February through October 1998, was a change of rater report when the applicant departed Redstone Arsenal, AL for Europe. The applicant was rated as a 91B. That the applicant’s NCOER for the period ending October 1998, Part IVb be amended to delete the comment “failed to retake the 91C licensure exam and did not notify his chain of command after promising that he would take it” and to change the rating from “Needs Some Improvement” to “Success.”

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610803C070209

    Original file (9610803C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 601-280, paragraph 2-22, specifies that individuals in pay grade E-4 cannot have more than 8 years of total active service at their ETS, as established by a reenlistment. He had to be recommended for promotion by his commander. It appears that the applicant was able to control his attitude in the last year of his enlistment and finally became an effective soldier and nurse.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020888

    Original file (20140020888.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Her recruiter did not complete a constructive credit worksheet (DA Form 5074-1-R (Record of Entry Grade Credit (Health Professional Officers))), to account for her service on the Telemetry Ward since she was only 1 week away from having a full year of volunteer time. (2) Paragraph 6.1.2.2.5. states credit of one-half year for each year of experience, up to a maximum of three years of constructive credit, may be granted for experience in a health profession, if such experience is directly...