RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 3 February 2004
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003088487


         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
Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson
Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member
Ms. Regan K. Smith		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).


1. The applicant requests that her rank be reinstated to sergeant first class, E-7.

2. The applicant states, in effect, that she was released from active duty in the Active Guard Reserve on 7 May 2002 for completion of required active service. She returned to active duty in the Regular Army on 11 June 2002 and was reduced two grades as a result of the Army's strength levels at that time. She contends that she completed all active duty requirements to retain E-7, held the grade for 18 months, never had any adverse actions, and successfully filled E-7 and E-8 positions for the last four years. She states that even after returning to service as an E-5 she continues to fulfill the responsibilities of a sergeant first class, that she deserves to get her rank back, that soldiers who suffer disciplinary action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice lose less rank than she did, and that the Strength Management Branch suggested this action for consideration.

3. The applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); promotion orders to sergeant first class, dated
16 October 2000; five noncommissioned officer (NCO) evaluation reports; recommendations in support of her request from her chain of command; and a DD Form 4/1 (Enlistment Contract), dated 11 June 2002.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant had prior service in the Regular Army. She was transferred to the U. S. Army Reserve on 11 August 1989. She entered active duty in an Active Guard Reserve status on 31 July 1994. On 7 May 2002, she was released from active duty in the rank of sergeant first class under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 4, for completion of required active service. She had completed 10 years and 10 days of creditable active service.

2. On 7 May 2002, in a statement to the U. S. Army Recruiting Command, New Hartford Recruiting Station, the applicant declined [enlistment] consideration in military occupational specialty (MOS) 79R (recruiter).

3. On 30 May 2002, the Retention Management Division at U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) approved a request for grade determination for the purpose of enlistment in the Regular Army in the grade of E-5 provided the applicant qualified and enlisted for retraining in MOS 92Y (unit supply specialist).

4. On 30 May 2002, the applicant accepted the offer of retraining consideration for MOS 92Y. She also indicated that she had taken the 92Y correspondence course.

5. On 11 June 2002, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of
3 years in pay grade E-5.

6. On 5 March 2003, the applicant requested, as an exception to policy, grade determination and reclassification. She indicated that she was released from the Active Guard Reserve program as a sergeant first class in May 2002 after
15 years time in service and 10 years of active duty, that her last position was an E-8 slot and prior to that she was in an E-7 slot as a recruiter, and that she was a medical supply sergeant for 7 years. She stated that she completed active duty PLDC (Primary Leadership Development Course), BNCOC (Basic Noncommissioned Officers Course), and ANCOC (Advanced Noncommissioned Officers Course), that her career path for Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES) is 91J (medical supply specialist), she currently holds five MOSs, and that the Army has spent tens of thousands of training dollars on her to be a senior NCO. 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. She stated that she was also told that all of her MOSs were overstrength and that they could not send an E-6 to reclassify. She indicated that she chose MOS 92Y and accepted the two-grade reduction reluctantly and that when she began MOS 92Y school she was told she would have to repeat BNCOC and ANCOC, thereby wasting training dollars. She stated that she has not worked in her current primary MOS since completion of that training in August of 2002 and that she serves in MOS 75H (personnel). Her unit commander recommended approval of her request. Two intermediate commanders recommended approval of the applicant's request.

7. On 20 March 2003, the Chief, Strength Management Branch, U.S. Army Infantry Center, Fort Benning, Georgia, denied the applicant's request for voluntary reclassification. 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]. Reentry as a 91J was denied in part because of Army strength (needs). A request for reclassification would not be approved during this enlistment for the same reason soldier was not permitted to reenter in the former PMOS [primary MOS]".

8. The applicant was promoted to staff sergeant, E-6, on 1 August 2003.

9. Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program), paragraph 3-17, provides for enlistment pay grade for applicants with prior military service who are enlisting into the Regular Army. This chapter, in pertinent part, states that a soldier last separated from any component or is a current member of a Reserve component in grade E-7 through E-9 regardless of years of service, but with less that 20 years will have enlistment grade and eligibility determined by the Commanding General, PERSCOM.

10. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Policy and Eligibility Inquiries Branch, PERSCOM. That office pointed out that the Army policy in effect at the time of the applicant's enlistment, authorized soldiers with prior service to retain their current grade if enlisting within 24 months following separation, or if a current member of a reserve component, and if a vacancy existed provided they had completed appropriate Regular Army NCOES leadership requirements or its equivalent. It was noted that at the time of the applicant's enlistment there were no vacancies in the applicant's primary MOS in the grade of E-7, E-6, or E-5. Soldier's primary MOS 91J was at 115 percent for sergeant first class, 103 percent for staff sergeant and 105 percent for sergeant with all grades having soldiers pending promotion to the respective grades. They pointed out that the applicant declined consideration in MOS 79R. They further pointed out that the applicant was approved to enlist in grade E-5 for retraining in MOS 92Y which was at 95 percent strength and that she enlisted in the Army in the correct grade of E-5. Therefore, no change of grade was recommended.

11. A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment or rebuttal. On 17 July 2003, the applicant responded and stated that she met the requirements to compete for the rank of sergeant first class and was selected for promotion. She stated that she held the rank for 18 months, that she was working in a master sergeant position prior to her release from active duty, and that she was only in the Individual Ready Reserve for 34 days. She further stated that she was boarded and selected for staff sergeant with a 1 August 2003 promotion date.

12. On 4 September 2003, the applicant provided an addendum to her rebuttal to the advisory opinion. She stated that PERSCOM made their decision based solely on strength levels and that experience, knowledge, qualifications, qualities, recommendations, and love of soldiers and the Army played no part in their decision making process. She argues that how can the Army expect to have a competent quality force if all they see is numbers, that quantity means nothing without good soldiers to back it up, and that numbers do not save lives in war and peace, experienced knowledgeable leaders do. She goes on to state that she was released from the Active Guard Reserve program for the sole purpose of reentering the Regular Army to be a more active part of the military community on an installation, that she loves the Army and is a career minded soldier, and that is why she accepted the reduction in rank.

13. On 27 October 2003, the applicant provided a second addendum to her rebuttal to the advisory opinion. She stated that she was on an Observer/Controller (OC) mission at the time she submitted her rebuttal and did not have much time out in the field. She again restated previous contentions addressed in her first addendum and added that she continued to pursue her next rank because that is the type of soldier she is, that she was promoted to staff sergeant on 1 August 2003, and that she completed the OC course in August and recently graduated from the Instructor Training Course.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS :

1. The applicant was released from active duty on 7 May 2002 in the rank of sergeant first class, E-7. When she subsequently sought to enlist in the Regular Army, PERSCOM approved on 30 May 2002 a request for grade determination in accordance with regulatory guidance for the purpose of her enlistment in the Regular Army in the grade of E-5 provided she qualified and enlisted for retraining in MOS 92Y (unit supply specialist). There were no vacancies in her primary MOS in the grade of E-7, E-6, or E-5.

2. The applicant voluntarily accepted the offer of retraining for MOS 92Y and enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years in pay grade E-5. There is no evidence of error or injustice in this case and, therefore, there is no basis for granting her request to reinstate her rank to sergeant first class.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

SAC ___ CLG _____ RKS _____ DENY APPLICATION


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.




                  _Samuel A. Crumpler____
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088487
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20040203
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	112.0200
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.