MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 14 November 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002071767

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson
Mr. John P. Infante		Member
Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. 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.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

---

APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her enlistment contract be corrected to show that she enlisted in the pay grade of E-3 under the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program (ACASP) and that her subsequent promotions be accelerated by 22 months.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that while in her senior year of high school, she enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) under the delayed entry program (DEP) on 6 March 1985. At the time she was attending a business data processing class in a local Vocational Education Magnet School and a recruiter visited the school and informed her that upon completion of the course, she would be eligible to enlisted in the Army in the pay grade of E-3 under the ACASP. She approached her recruiter with this information and was told that he had never heard of the program. She completed the program on 11 June 1985 and enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 July 1985. When she arrived at basic training she discovered that two other soldiers had enlisted under the ACASP, so she informed her drill sergeant and requested assistance. After a few days had elapsed, her drill sergeant told her that it was too late because she had already signed her enlistment contract. As a result, she had to attend advanced individual training and it took her 22 months to attain the pay grade of E-4. Consequently, all of her promotions have been delayed. She goes on to state that while the Army has no legal obligation to change her contract, it is morally the right thing to do because her recruiter mislead her at the time. In support of her application, she submits a copy of her enlistment contract and an unofficial copy of a Vocational Competency Record dated 11 June 1985, indicating that she completed entry-level training of a computer operator.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

She enlisted in the USAR under the DEP on 6 March 1985, in the pay grade of E-1. On 18 July 1985, she enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 4 years, training as computer operator and assignment to the Health Services Command.

She successfully completed her training and served as a computer operator until 5 December 1988, when she reenlisted in the pay grade of E-4 for a period 4 years and training as a communications security equipment repairer. She has remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments and was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 April 1999.

The Vocational Competency Record submitted by the applicant, though unofficial in nature, indicates that she took business education courses consisting of business data processing courses I & II and that she demonstrated employment skills related to entry-level jobs of a computer operator. It does not indicate the length of the courses or training.

In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), Retention Management Division. Officials at the PERSCOM opined that her request should not be approved because there is no evidence in either her USAR enlistment contract dated 6 March 1985, or her RA enlistment contract dated 18 July 1985, to show that she revealed or produced evidence to show that she was qualified for enlistment under the ACASP, with 2 years of education and/or experience.

The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and she responded to the effect that she had not completed the training until after her enlistment in the USAR. Furthermore, when she inquired of the program to her recruiter, he indicated that he had never heard of it. She further stated that it should have been the responsibility of her recruiter to inform her of whatever was necessary for her records at the time.

Army Regulation 601-210, in effect at the time, provided the criteria for enlistment under the ACASP (formerly the Stripes-for-Skills Program). It states, in pertinent part, that ACASP applicants must present valid evidence of completion of required civilian training, which is official in nature and indicates the period of training and/or work experience. Personnel who meet the 2-year training/work experience criteria for computer operators may be enlisted in the pay grade of E-3 and may receive an accelerated promotion to the pay grade of E-4. Classification interviewers at reception stations will continue to review individual qualifications. They will identify soldiers not recruited under the ACASP, but should be processed under Army Regulation 601-210, as it applies to soldiers with civilian-acquired skills. Soldiers found qualified under ACASP will be referred to the United States Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) liaison.

DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, 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. Although the unofficial Vocational Competency Record submitted by the applicant does not establish the 2-years of education/experience required for entry into the ACASP, the issue in this case is really one of an accusation of recruiter malfeasance.




3. The applicant is claiming to this Board, 16 years after-the-fact, that her recruiter told her that there was no such program as the ACASP and that she was subsequently told that it was too late because she had already signed her contract. In doing so, she has failed to provide any evidence to support her contentions.

4. The Board also notes that once the applicant discovered that she had been mis-lead by her recruiter, she could have filed a complaint with the inspector general (IG), who could have initiated an investigation into the matter at the time, while the facts, information and individuals involved were readily available. Unfortunately, the passage of time and lack of available records to substantiate the applicant’s claim make it difficult at best to ascertain what really happened in the applicant’s case.

5. However, this Board is not an investigative agency and in each case, it is the individual’s responsibility to provide the evidence necessary to substantiate a claim of error or injustice. The Board finds that the applicant has not substantiated her claim and as such the Board finds no error or injustice in her case.

6. 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

___ao___ ___rks___ ___jpi___ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002071767
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	2002/11/14
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 224	112.0200/ENL GRD/DOR
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.