| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that the effective date of her promotion to and her date of rank (DOR) to sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5) be changed from 1 march 2002 to 5 July 2001, and that she be provided all back pay and allowances due as a result.
3. The applicant states, in effect, her job proficiency was certified by a nursing instructor in a memorandum, dated 3 July 2001, with a recommendation that she be promoted effective 5 July 2001, in accordance with Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 7-11. She states that the original recommendation for promotion dated 3 July 2001 was forwarded to the Personnel Service Battalion (PSB) until some 7 months later. In support of her application, she submits the following documents: 3 July 2001, memorandum recommending award of accelerated promotion; 21 February 2002, memorandum recommending award MOS 91WM6 (Health Care Specialist) with an additional skill identifier (ASI) of M6 (Practical Nurse) and accelerated promotion; 25 February 2002, memorandum recommending award of MOS 91WM6 and accelerated promotion; A Civilian Acquired Skills Program (ACASP) enlistment option (DA Form 3286-68); enlistment contract (DD Form 4/1,2,3; certificate of nurse training, dated 14 May 1999; vocational nursing license, State of Texas; and SGT/E-5 promotion orders.
4. On 22 December 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Army for a period of
4 years, in the rank of specialist/E-4, with the following options: US Army Station of Choice Enlistment Option; an incentive cash bonus of $13,000.00; and the Civilian Acquired Skills Enlistment Program, which authorized her advancement to the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5, based on her civilian acquired skills in MOS 91 as Practical Nurse, upon completion of a prescribed course and the recommendation of her commander. She is currently serving on active duty at Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC), Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
5. 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.
6. On 21 February 2002, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that the applicant be awarded MOS 91WM6 and receive her accelerated promotion to SGT/E-5 with an effective date of 1 March 2002. On 25 February 2002, the applicant’s field grade level commander also made this same recommendation.
7. On 5 March 2002, Orders Number 064-601 was published by Headquarters, US Army Medical Center and School and Fort Sam Houston, Fort Sam Houston. These orders authorized the applicant’s promotion to rank of SGT/ E-5 effective
1 March 2002.
8. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) Retention Management Division. It opined that the applicant enlisted under the ACASP, table 7-1, MOS 91W/M6. Under the provisions of Army Regulations 601-210, paragraph 7-1, persons qualified for the ASCAP are given an advance grade upon enlistment and successful completion of all prescribed training listed in Table 7-2 or 7-3, individual may be promoted to accelerated grade authorized by table 7-1 (E-5). The advisory opinion noted that the applicant had completed the required training on 3 July 2001, and had received a recommendation for accelerated promotion to SGT/E-5, with an effective date of 5 July 2001. Therefore, PERSCOM officials recommended that the applicant’s request to have her promotion effective date and DOR to SGT/E-5 to 5 July 2001 be approved. On 9 May 2002, a copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for comment. To date she has failed to respond acknowledgement/rebuttal.
9. Army Regulation 601- 210, prescribes eligibility criteria governing the enlistment of persons, with or without prior service (PS), into the Regular Army (RA) and the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR). Chapter 7 provides policy and guidance for implementing the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program (ACASP). It states, in pertinent part, that persons qualified for the ACASP may be given an advancement in grade upon enlistment in the skill in which they hold proficiency. Advancement to the grade identified is authorized based on the successful completion of required proficiency training, skill level held, and demonstrated duty performance.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that she should have been promoted to SGT/E-5, effective 5 July 200, based on her completing the prescribed training, being recommended for the applicable MOS, and for accelerated promotion by schools officials, and finds this claim has merit.
2. The evidence of records confirms the applicant was eligible for an accelerated promotion to SGT with an effective date and DOR of 5 July 2001, based on the recommendation of schools officials once she completed the prescribed proficiency training in the MOS indicated in her ASCAP enlistment contract option statement. The applicant’s eligibility based on her completing ASCAP is further confirmed by the recommendation contained in the PERSCOM advisory opinion provided for this case.
3. Based on the facts of this case, the Board concludes that the applicant was unjustly denied a promotion to which she was entitled, based on completing the prerequisites established for her accelerated promotion in her enlistment contract. Therefore, the Board concurs with the advisory opinion from PERSCOM and finds that it would be appropriate to adjust the applicant’s promotion to SGT/E-5, with a promotion effective date and DOR of 5 July 2001, and to provide her all back pay and allowances due as a result.
4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected 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 promoted to the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5, effective 5 July 2001, with a DOR of 5 July 2001; and by providing her all back pay and allowances due a result.
BOARD VOTE:
__INW__ __KAN__ __RTD___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
____Irene N. Wheelwright ___
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002071580 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/06/27 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131.0400 |
| 2. | 131.0500 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | 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 | 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022620
The applicant requests correction of her DA Form 3286 (Statement for Enlistment-U.S. Army Enlistment Program), dated 18 March 2009, to show she enlisted under the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program (ACASP) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 68WM6 (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)) with promotion to specialist (SPC), E-4. The advisory opinion from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, Recruiting Policy Branch revealed that the applicant was eligible for enlistment on 17 March...
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 | 2001059883C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : That she enlisted under the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program (ACASP). 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:
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 | CY2003 | 2003083430C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests that her records be corrected to show that she was promoted to sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 27 June 1997. There is no evidence of any proficiency training completed, nor any evidence that she was recommended for promotion by her prior unit commanders. Consequently, and notwithstanding the recommendation made by her current hospital commander, there is insufficient evidence to grant the applicant's request.
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...