| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Tracey L. Pinson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show that he enlisted as prior service in the Regular Army in pay grade E-5.
APPLICANT STATES: He was enlisted in pay grade E-4 instead of his previously held grade of E-5 because his Primary Leadership and Development Course (PLDC) equivalency wasn’t accepted. Subsequent to his enlistment, his PLDC equivalency was approved.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Army Reserve (USAR) on 5 October 1989, was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) of motor transport operator, and was promoted to pay grade E-5 on 1 October 1997.
On 18 June 2001, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-4 for 3 years.
On 4 March 2002, the applicant was awarded PLDC equivalency.
On the date the applicant submitted his request, he was serving on active duty in pay grade E-4.
In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). The PERSCOM stated that the enlistment regulation states that a current member of the reserve component may be enlisted in their current pay grade if a vacancy exists. At the time of the applicant’s enlistment, there were no vacancies in his MOS in pay grade E-5. In fact, pay grade E-5 for his MOS was at 105% at that time. As such, the applicant was enlisted in the proper pay grade. The PERSCOM recommends that no change be made to the applicant's records. The applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion and given the opportunity to respond. The applicant did not respond.
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's contention that his inability to be granted a PLDC waiver prior to his enlistment in the Regular Army had a bearing on the grade he enlisted has not been established with either the documentation submitted by the applicant or the evidence of record.
2. However, as pointed out by the PERSCOM, the applicant could not have been enlisted in pay grade E-5 since there were no vacancies in that grade for the applicant’s MOS at that time.
3. The applicant was well aware of the grade in which he was enlisting and accepted that grade. While it is unfortunate that he lost a grade in the process, at the time the Army needed soldiers in the applicant’s MOS in pay grade E-4 and not pay grade E-5.
4. 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
____kak _ ___mhm_ ___tlp___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002076557 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030128 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 112.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056840C070420
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his military records be corrected to show that he enlisted into the Army at the rank of sergeant. 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: A review of the governing regulations and the applicant’s records indicate that he was properly advised that his USMC MOS did not convert to MOS 31C and he was properly denied...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075716C070403
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, the applicant requests that his records be corrected to show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 June 2001 in pay grade E-5. That change states in pertinent part that an applicant separated from the Regular Army in grade E-5 with not more than 12 years total active service and who enlists within 24 months following separation, or who is a current member of a Reserve Component (after Regular Army service), will be enlisted in the grade of sergeant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080395C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his record be corrected to show that he enlisted in pay grade E-5. The applicant's military education did not qualify him for enlistment in pay grade E-5.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000714C070208
Curtis Greenway | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. In connection with his application, the HRC, Alexandria provided an advisory opinion, dated 14 July 2004, which states that chapter 3-17, Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program), in effect at the time, provided that an individual with prior service could retain their current grade if enlisting within 24 months...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074099C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant submits promotion board proceeding documents showing that he was selected for promotion to sergeant E-5 in 1998, and that he was placed on a recommended list for promotion. That command stated that while the applicant did meet the 1 July 1998 cutoff score for promotion in his specialty he had not completed PLDC, a requirement for promotion; additionally, he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088487C070403
She acknowledged that she reentered active duty in the Regular Army 34 days after she was released from active duty, that she did not have a break in service, and was told that unless she returned to MOS 79R she would be reduced two grades and had to reclassify in either MOS 92Y or MOS 92G. He cited that the Chief, Reclassification Branch, PERSCOM stated, "An exception to policy was granted to allow the soldier reentry into active Army service in 92Y at SGT [sergeant]. They further pointed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082313C070215
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 evidence of record...
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 | CY2003 | 2003083491C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he did not have to attend Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC) because he had been “grandfathered.” He adds he will never be promoted with these two AER’s in his OMPF. On the date the applicant submitted his request to the Board, he was on active duty in the AGR program in pay grade E-5.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073132C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. It noted that the applicant could have been promoted on 1 November 2001 but that the command had made no such request. 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: