| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Kenneth L. Wright | Member | |
| Mr. Eric N. Andersen | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests that he be promoted to sergeant, pay grade E-5, effective and with a date of rank of 1 July 2001.
2. The applicant states that upon his arrival at his duty station he provided documents regarding his promotion under the provisions of the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program (CASP); however, he was informed that he [the applicant] misinterpreted its meaning – that no one could be promoted in that manner.
3. The applicant provides a copy of a 12 April 2001 order assigning him to Fort Meade, Maryland; a copy of an order promoting him to sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 1 October 2002; a copy of an information paper on CASP promotions; a copy of a DA Form 3286-68 (Statement for Enlistment – United States Army/Army Reserve Civilian Acquired Skills Enlistment Program); a copy of a certificate showing that he completed a course in surgical technology; and copies of memorandums to this Board from the Army Medical Department Activity (MEDDAC) at Fort Meade recommending that the applicant be promoted effective and with a date of rank of 1 July 2001.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant was a prior service Soldier who enlisted in the Army for six years in pay grade E-4 on 12 April 2001. His enlistment documents show that he enlisted under the provisions of the CASP for MOS (military occupational specialty) 91D, operating room specialist. He stated that he understood that enlistment under that program authorized him to be advanced in grade based upon his demonstrated skill, proficiency, and conduct as a soldier. He indicated that he would be advanced to pay grade E-5 in accordance with Army Regulation 601-210 provided he received a recommendation from his commander. He stated that he understood that promotion was not automatic but depended upon his demonstration of proficiency, skill, and conduct.
2. The applicant was assigned to Fort Meade, Maryland with a reporting date of 22 April 2001. On 3 February 2003 he was promoted to sergeant, pay grade E-5, effective and with a date of rank of 1 July 2001. On 10 February 2003 the order effecting his promotion was revoked. On 18 March 2003 he was promoted to sergeant, effective and with a date of rank of 1 October 2002.
3. On 12 March 2003 the Chief, Operating Room nurse at the MEDDAC at Fort Meade stated that the applicant was not promoted in a timely manner. She stated that he successfully performed 8 weeks as a 91D operating room specialist and completed all the requirements for promotion. She recommended that he be promoted effective on 1 July 2001. The applicant's commanding officer at the MEDDAC provided a like recommendation.
4. Army Regulation 601-210, chapter 7, provides policy and guidance for the implementation of the ACASP. The ACASP attracts and uses persons with civilian acquired skills required by the Army. Persons qualified for the ACASP may be given an advance in grade upon enlistment and may be entitled to accelerated promotion based on the skill level held and demonstrated duty performance. Promotion to the accelerated grade and award of the MOS authorized by the enlistment agreement will be made either with the approval of the unit commander or by the training commander for active Army personnel, after successful completion of all training required by the enlistment program selected. Table 7-1 lists the skills and criteria authorized for the ACASP, and states that to qualify for MOS 91D20 as an operating room specialist with later appointment to pay grade E-4 a Soldier must have one year experience as an operating room technician or have completed an operating room technician course of at least 12 weeks' duration; and must have completed 8 weeks of proficiency training as a prerequisite for award of the MOS, and be able to perform the duty requirements of the MOS before award of the MOS and promotion to an accelerated pay grade.
5. Army Regulation 600-8-19 provides for enlisted promotions and states in pertinent part that soldiers enlisted into the Army under ACASP in accordance with Army Regulation 601-210 will be promoted under this paragraph [AR 600-8-19, paragraph 3-7]. The effective date and date of rank will be the date all requirements are met.
6. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1. That office stated that the applicant should have been enlisted in pay grade E-3 under the provisions of the CASP, with later promotion to pay grade E-4; however, the guidance counselor [who enlisted the applicant] made an obvious error, enlisting the applicant in pay grade E-4 with later promotion to pay grade E-5; and consequently, in view of that information in his contract, the applicant believed that he would be eligible for an accelerated promotion to E-5 upon completion of proficiency training. That office recommended that the applicant be promoted to sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 1 July 2001. On 25 August 2003 the applicant concurred with the advisory opinion.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant executed a contract upon his enlistment in the Army that stipulated that he would be enlisted in pay grade E-4, and upon completion of proficiency training, and with the necessary recommendation, he would be promoted to pay grade E-5.
2. Notwithstanding the fact that his enlistment in pay grade E-4 was erroneous, the fault was not his. He enlisted in pay grade E-4, completed the proficiency training and has been recommended for promotion to sergeant E-5 with a date of rank of 1 July 2001. The applicant’s records should be corrected to show that he was promoted to sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 1 July 2001. He should receive all due pay and allowances in that grade effective on 1 July 2001.
BOARD VOTE:
__KAN __ __KLW__ ___ENA _ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003092998 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20040304 |
| 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. | 131.00 |
| 2. | |
| 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 | 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 | CY2006 | 20060006752C070205
William Crain | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The opinion states that if the applicant enlisted under the ACASP for MOS 91D with an entry grade of E-3 and later appointment to E-4, then accelerated promotion to E-4 was authorized upon completion of all required training. That office recommended, in effect, administrative relief of the applicant's request for his date of rank and effective date of promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015542
The applicant provides, in support of her application, copies of her memorandum submitted through the Commander, USARIEM; a statement from a sergeant; her college transcripts; her certificate for Medical Technologist (MT); a letter, dated 21 October 2008, from USARIEM; an SFS Form 29-E-R (Recommendation for Student Action); two pages from her application for enlistment; 3 pages from her enlistment contract; her orders, dated 2 June 2003, for transfer to the Medical Command Europe Replacement...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007893C070208
The applicant requests that his enlistment contract be corrected to reflect that he enlisted under the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program (ACASP) with a promotion to E-5, effective 29 January 2003, in accordance with Army Regulation's 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) and 601-210 chapter 7-11 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program). Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 7-11 states that accelerated promotion of persons enlisted under the ACASP will be made either...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000184C070206
Carmen Duncan | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. A Statement for Enlistment (DA Form 3286-63) included with the enlistment contract verifies that she was enlisting for the ACASP in military occupational specialty (MOS) 98G (Electronic Warfare Signal Intelligence Analyst (Russian Linguist)), and that she would be advanced to the pay grade of E-5 in accordance with Army Regulation 601-210 provided she received a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000624
a. Paragraph 7-11 (Determination of qualifications and enlistment grades) provides that ACASP applicants must present valid evidence of completion of required civilian training to enlistment authorities. The evidence of record shows the applicant enlisted in the USAR in the grade of E-4 under the ACASP on 4 November 2006 with an assurance of attending the school course for MOS 68V2O (Respiratory Specialist). The evidence of record shows that the online DA Pamphlet 611-21, printed on 12...
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 | 2001054593C070420
The applicant states he signed an addendum for a SRIP bonus but was denied his bonus by finance because the MOS which was on the list of those skills eligible for the bonus was for skill level “2” (pay grade E-5). In support of his application he submits the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve (OCAR) SRIP list which contains MOS 91C20 as a skill eligible for a $5,000.00 enlistment bonus for NPS CASP enlistees. On 25 July 2000 the applicant’s unit’s finance office stated that since the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005184C070205
The applicant’s military service records contain a copy of DA Form 3286- 68 (Statement for Enlistment, ACASP), dated 16 August 2003, which shows that the applicant will be advanced to pay grade E-5 in accordance with Army Regulation 601-210 upon demonstration of his proficiency, skill, and conduct, and receiving a recommendation for promotion from his commander. The advisory opinion adds that the accelerated promotion to pay grade E-5 and date of rank should coincide with the actual...