RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          18 November 2003
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003087070

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

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John N. Slone                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Mark D. Manning               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Barbara J. Ellis              |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in  effect,  that  he  be  granted  constructive
credit and that his date of rank be adjusted accordingly.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he originally submitted a direct
commission packet to his recruiter for appointment in specialty 72D
(Environmental Science Officer).  He claims that he was informed by his
recruiter that he was boarded in specialty
70B (Healthcare Administrator) because he was not eligible to be boarded in
specialty 72D. He states that he later discovered that what the recruiter
told him was untrue and that he was in fact specialty 72D eligible.  The
MSC board corrected his specialty, but informed him he would have to apply
to this Board to receive constructive credit.

3.  The applicant provides a list of his qualifications and experience, the
6 November 2002 Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM) memorandum
awarding him specialty 72D, a United States Army Recruiting Command
(USAREC) professional evaluation memorandum, dated 17 September 2002, and a
copy of his appointment memorandum, dated 13 November 2001.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.   The applicant’s military records shows that he was appointed a second
lieutenant (2LT) in the MSC of the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 13
November 2001.  The applicant’s appointment memorandum indicates that he
was appointed in specialty 70B and that he received no constructive credit.


2.  On 17 September 2002, the Chief, MSC Branch, USAREC requested that the
applicant’s documentation be reviewed and comments on the applicant’s
qualifications and if constructive credit for professional service should
be granted.  The response provided indicated that the applicant had diverse
experience and in the 72D technical area, but there was concern about the
applicant’s age.

3.  On 6 November 2002, the Director Health Services Personnel Management,
ARPERSCOM, awarded the applicant specialty 72D and withdrew his 70B
specialty.

4.  In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was
obtained from the Chief, MSC Division, USAREC.  This official recommended
that the applicant’s current entry rank of 2LT stand.  He indicated that
the information provided by the applicant was misleading and brought
additional questions to the scope of what really happened.  He further
states that the applicant does not warrant an increase in constructive
credit.
5.  The USAREC opinion further opines that the applicant is not entitled to
constructive credit for his work experience because he was boarded and
appointed as a 70B, a specialty that does not calculate work experience.
He further indicates that the applicant’s documentation from the consultant
that qualifies him as a 72D based on his work experience is dated 17
September 2002, which was almost a year after his appointment.  This
official states that the bottom line is that as a result of the USAREC
accession board process, the applicant was appointed in specialty 70B.  The
later change in his specialty to 72D was the result of a determination made
by a subsequent board held at ARPERSCOM that he was qualified to perform in
that specialty.  This official further indicates that to support a change
in the accession specialty, the boarding process would have had to have
been held at USAREC and involved his competing against other 72D applicants
at the time of accession.

6.  On 26 September 2003, the applicant was provided a copy of the USAREC
advisory opinion in order to have the opportunity to rebut its contents.
To date, he has failed to respond.

7.  Army Regulation 135-101 prescribes policy, procedures, and eligibility
criteria for appointment in the Reserve Components of the Army, in the six
branches of the Army Medical Department (AMEDD).  Paragraph 3-4 (Transition
Credit) states, in pertinent part, that the grade and date of rank upon
appointment will be determined by the law and regulations in effect on the
date of the appointment.  The regulation stipulates that constructive
credit is not authorized for members entering a developmental specialty.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  By regulation, constructive credit for experience is not authorized for
members entering a developmental specialty.  The evidence of record
confirms that the applicant was appointed in the 70B, which is an entry
level developmental specialty.

2.  The evidence further confirms that the applicant, based on an
evaluation conducted subsequent to his appointment, was reclassified into
specialty 72D.  There is no evidence that this subsequent action raises any
doubts on the validity of the applicant’s initial accession processing or
appointment.  This determination is further supported by the information
provided in the USAREC advisory opinion, which the applicant has failed to
rebut.

3.  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.
4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_MM___  __JS___  __BE   __      DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.




            John N. Slone
                                                    CHAIRPERSON






                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003087070                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2003/11/DD                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A                                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |N/A                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  229  |112.0700                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |



-----------------------
[pic]