| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Robert J. McGowan | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her rank be advanced to sergeant (SGT/E-5) retroactive to the date she was promoted to specialist (SPC/E-4).
APPLICANT STATES: That she enlisted under the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program (ACASP). Her enlistment grade was private first class (PFC/E-3). Upon successful completion of all training required for her particular enlistment program (military occupational specialty, or MOS, 91C, Practical Nurse), she was promised promotion to SGT. When she completed her training, she was only promoted to SPC, effective 1 January 1999.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years on 25 June 1998. She enlisted for the US Army Station/Unit/Command/Area Enlistment Option specifying Fort Sill, Oklahoma as her station of choice. She also enlisted for the ACASP in MOS 91C, Practical Nurse. Under this option, she was enlisted as a PFC and, upon demonstration of proficiency, skill and conduct, was promised advancement to SPC provided she received a recommendation from her commander. The applicant signed DA Form 3286-68, Statement for Enlistment - United States Army/Army Reserve Civilian Acquired Skills Enlistment Program, on 26 June 1998 acknowledging that her ultimate rank would be SPC.
In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (ODCSPER) which recommends that the applicant's request be denied. The opinion states that there is no proof that the applicant was promised promotion to SGT upon completion of training. The applicant was provided an opportunity to respond to the advisory opinion, but did not do so.
Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program, prescribes criteria governing enlistment of persons in the Regular Army and US Army Reserve. Chapter 7 discusses enlistment under the ACASP and provides information for various MOS's, including MOS 91C. This chapter is frequently updated by messages from the US Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) which establish the final appointment rank. The final appointment rank for MOS 91C was established as SPC by PERSCOM message.
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 this requirement.
2. The applicant's enlistment contract specifically states that she would be enlisted as a PFC and promoted to SPC upon satisfactory completion of a period of duty demonstrating her proficiency as a practical nurse. She acknowledged this fact with her signature on 26 June 1998. Her enlistment contract never specified that she would be promoted to SGT. This is in accordance with changes to AR 601-210.
3. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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
__FNE__ ___MHM_ __BJE___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001059883 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011018 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | DIRECTOR |
| ISSUES 1. | 112.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064236C070421
The applicant was enlisted under the ACASP in MOS 91C. Her enlistment contract specified that she would enter the Army as an SPC/E-4 and, upon completion of training, would be promoted to the rank of SGT/E-5. The applicant’s chain of command supports her promotion to SGT/E-5 with a date of rank and effective date of 18 January 2000.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064207C070421
The applicant’s military records show that, with a degree and license in practical nursing, she enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years on 27 August 1999 in MOS 91C, and for the US Army Station/Unit/Command/Area Enlistment Program, and the ACASP. The applicant was enlisted under the ACASP in MOS 91C. Her enlistment contract specified that she would enter the Army as an SPC/E-4 and, upon completion of training, would be promoted to the rank of SGT/E-5.
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 | 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 | CY2002 | 2002071580C070402
On 3 July 2001, an instructor of the Nursing Education Service, BAMC, recommended that the applicant be awarded MOS 91C based on her successful completion of 8 weeks of proficiency training and that she be granted an accelerated promotion to SGT/E-5 in accordance with paragraph 7-11, Army Regulation 601-210, the ACASP enlistment option. The advisory opinion noted that the applicant had completed the required training on 3 July 2001, and had received a recommendation for accelerated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071359C070402
In an undated advisory opinion, the Chief, Promotions Branch at the Total Army Personnel Command stated that the applicant’s packet did not contain the promotion authority’s approval of the promotion as required by Army Regulation 601-210, and that promotion requests submitted 6 months after the date the soldier completes the required training must be forwarded to the ACASP proponent for determination.14. The applicant’s commanding officer recommended that the applicant be promoted to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004103309C070208
On 17 November 2001, the applicant’s commanding officer submitted a DA Form 4187 requesting that she be promoted to the pay grade of E-5 under the ACASP. In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Director, Health Service Personnel Management, United States Army Human Resources Command, who opined that the applicant completed her 91C, Licensed Practical Nurse training on 8 November 2001 and should have, at that time been promoted to the rank of sergeant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063283C070421
The applicant’s military records show that she enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 May 2000 under the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Enlistment Program (ACASP) for Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 91C (Practical Nurse), in the pay grade of E-4. The applicant enlisted in the Army under the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program for MOS 91C, she completed her 8 weeks of proficiency training, was awarded MOS 91C, and given an assignment as a Practical Nurse. That all of the Department of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071526C070402
In a 21 December 2001 memorandum to the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) the MEDDAC commander at Fort Stewart recommended that the applicant be promoted to sergeant effective on 26 July 2001 as an exception to policy. Both the applicant’s company commander and MEDDAC commander recommended that the applicant be promoted to sergeant effective on 26 July 2001, the date that she completed the required proficiency training. The applicant completed the required training.
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...