| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| M . | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
2. The applicant requests that his enlistment contract be corrected to show he enlisted for 6 years.
3. The applicant states that he reenlisted for 6 years, not for 5 years. He provides a copy of his Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States, DD Form 4-series dated 27 August 2001 showing he reenlisted for 6 years as supporting evidence.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he originally enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 July 1987.
5. The applicant last reenlisted on 27 August 2001, in the rank of Sergeant, E-5 promotable, for 6 years. Because the retention control point for a Sergeant, E-5 promotable is 20 years of active service, he should have been restricted to a 5-year reenlistment period. Apparently based on this fact, his retention noncommissioned officer re-executed the DD Form 4/1 to show the applicant reenlisted for 5 years. The DD Form 4/1 showing he reenlisted on 27 August 2001 for 5 years is on file in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
6. On 9 September 2002, apparently in response to a request from the applicant, the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) validated his 6-year reenlistment and approved his retention under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 7-16 (defective or unfulfilled enlistment or reenlistment agreements).
CONCLUSIONS:
1. On 9 September 2002, PERSCOM already validated the applicant's 27 August 2001 6-year reenlistment even though he was authorized to reenlist for a period of only 5 years.
2. All versions of the applicant's 27 August 2001 reenlistment contract which show he reenlisted for 5 years should be expunged from his records and replaced with the 27 August 2001 reenlistment contract that shows he reenlisted for 6 years.
3. 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 expunging from all the applicant's records all versions of his 27 August 2001 reenlistment contract that show he reenlisted for 5 years and replacing them with the version of his 27 August 2001 reenlistment contract that show he reenlisted for 6 years.
BOARD VOTE:
__RJW__ __RWA__ __JTM__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
___ Raymond J. Wagner _
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002076987 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/10 |
| 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. | 112.03 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080230C070215
In so doing, they stated that the applicant’s MOS (98C) did not qualify for a BSSRB and offered that he could request separation based on an unfulfilled enlistment contract. PERSCOM again stated that the applicant could request separation based on an unfulfilled enlistment contract. The applicant met his enlistment obligations in full and the Army should honor the promise made to the applicant in his enlistment contract by awarding him the BSSRB as an exception to policy.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066111C070421
He was subsequently promoted, but the promotion was revoked because he had not taken the required action within the promotion month in accordance with the applicable regulation. The PERSCOM officials opined that since there was no evidence that he had been properly notified of the requirement to extend or reenlist, that he should be granted an exception to policy to accept the promotion effective the day he reenlisted (22 March 2001). Although the Board agrees with the opinion of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070253C070402
The applicant states that, in accordance with Army Regulation 601-210, he met all of the requirements to be promoted to the pay grade of E-5, 8 weeks after he completed all of the required courses. He should have been promoted to the pay grade of E-5 effective on that date. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was promoted to the pay grade of E-5, effective 6 June 2000, with a date of rank of 6 June 2000,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082980C070215
The applicant states that his nonparticipation letter, dated 27 August 2001, informed him of his option to be assigned to the Retired Reserve or be discharged. Inasmuch as the applicant meets eligibility requirements for assignment to the Retired Reserve, it would be equitable and just to correct his military records by revoking his discharge of 29 October 2001, and assigning him to the Retired Reserve effective the same date. b. by showing that he was transferred to the Retired Reserve...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075555C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation, Volume 7A, chapter 35 states that, among other reasons, service members separated at their own request or enlisted members...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003082299C070212
At the time the promotion was revoked, ARPERSCOM recommended that the applicant’s request for de facto status be granted in accordance with regulatory guidance. It states that when orders are published revoking an advancement or promotion, the soldier's service in the higher grade may be determined to have been de facto so as to allow the soldier to retain pay and allowances received in that status. In view of the facts of this case, and based on the de facto status determination and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069572C070402
The packet submitted by the applicant’s battalion commander also includes confirmation of the applicant’s medical problems between April 2000 and August 2001, and a medical document that verifies that she was placed on a temporary physical profile on 8 August 2001, which prevented her attendance at her scheduled September 2001 ANCOC class. The evidence of record and the applicant’s battalion commander confirm that she was on a valid temporary physical profile that prohibited her attendance...
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 | CY2002 | 2002068751C070402
Based on the information presented, it is recommended that the applicant's request be approved and his records be considered by an SSB with the military educational waiver. The Board also notes that if the applicant is selected by an SSB, he cannot be promoted until he completes the military educational requirements. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing an approved waiver for the past criteria of the 2000 educational requirements for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087991C070212
The applicant requests that his records be corrected by expunging US Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) Order No. The applicant was advised on 28 March 2003 that his name had been reinstated to the Promotion Selection List and that promotion orders would be published in the next Promotion Orders Booklet. The evidence of record shows the applicant was reinstated on the SFC Promotion Selection List and was subsequently promoted.