RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF: .
        

         BOARD DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2004
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003089419


         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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson
Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member
Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 that her enlistment contract be corrected to reflect that she enlisted under the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program (ACASP) and that she was authorized an accelerated promotion to the pay grade of E-5 effective 23 October 2002.

2. The applicant states, in effect, that at the time of her enlistment she was not informed that she should have been enlisted under the ACASP with an accelerated promotion to the pay grade of E-5. She further states that she responded to an advertisement that was part of a national search by the Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (USARIEM also known as Natick Laboratories) to obtain highly qualified enlisted personnel to support their unique mission. She goes on to state that after arriving at the USARIEM she discovered that two other individuals who were selected for the same program, enlisted under the same program and had similar credentials as hers, and were granted accelerated promotions to the pay grade of E-5 by the Board, based on the same circumstances that occurred in her case. She also states that she has a Master's Degree in Health and Exercise Science with an emphasis in Exercise Physiology and had she been properly enlisted under the ACASP, she would have been promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 23 October 2002. She further states that she does not believe that the oversight by the recruiter should cause her to be penalized.

3. The applicant provides supporting statements from her commander, her recruiting station commander, and the Research Physiologist at the USARIEM who recruited her. She also submits a copy of her college transcript, a copy of her diploma from 91K training and a memorandum awarding her the Additional Skill Identifier of P9 (Biological Research Assistant).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on 7 June 2001, in the pay grade of E-4, for a period of 5 years, a cash enlistment bonus and assignment to Natick Laboratories in MOS 91K (Biological Science Assistant). At the time of her enlistment she had a Master of Science degree in Exercise Science. She completed her basic combat training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and her 91K training at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, and Walter Reed Army Medical Center. She was transferred to USARIEM on 22 September 2002.

2. The supporting statement submitted by the applicant’s commander indicates, in effect, that the applicant is academically qualified for the position she was recruited for and recommends that the applicant’s request be approved.
3. The supporting statement from the USARIEM Research Physiologist indicates, in effect, that he recruited the applicant after she (the applicant) responded to a national search by the institute to fill several biological science assistant positions. He also states that after reviewing the applicant’s qualifications that she was exceptionally well qualified for the position and that it was his understanding, while working with the recruiter and the commander, that the applicant would be enlisted under the ACASP with accelerated advancement to the pay grade of E-5. He recommended that the applicant’s request be approved.

4. The statement provided by the recruiting station commander indicates, in effect, that at the time of enlistment it was understood that the applicant qualified for advanced promotion to the pay grade of E-5 under the 91K ACASP for Natick Labs. He further states that he knows for a fact that other applicants who enlisted for the same program and had the same qualifications were given accelerated advancements under the ACASP. He also states that while no promises or guarantees were made, it was discussed that the advanced promotion upon enlistment would be granted if they qualified.

5. In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Recruiting Policy Branch of the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-1, which opines, in effect, that the applicant did not meet the qualifications for enlistment under the ACASP for MOS 91K20P9 and did not attain those qualifications until she finished her advanced individual training. Accordingly, a recommendation was made that her request should be denied.

6. The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant who responded to the effect that at the time she responded to the national search by Natick Labs, the position was announced as a biological science assistant (91K) research position. The minimum requirement for the position was a bachelor's degree (master's degree preferred) in exercise science. Military enlistment with MOS training as a 91K prior to arriving at USARIEM was a requirement as well and it stated that possession of a bachelor's or master's degree would allow him/her to enlist as a specialist with automatic promotion to the pay grade of E-5 after arriving at the USARIEM. Prior to enlistment she was working as a Clinical Research Associate for 3M Pharmaceuticals and should not be unjustly penalized for an administrative error that occurred when she responded to the national advertisement by USARIEM.

7. In previous cases involving two identical cases (Biological Science Assistant (91KP9) Research positions recruited for Natick Labs) it was established that soldiers were recruited for the positions under the ACASP and their contracts specified accelerated advancement to the pay grade of E-5 contingent upon approval by the commander, and that they also attended 91K training. The Board adjudicated two cases that were identical to the applicant's where they had not been enlisted under the ACASP and yet two others who enlisted under the same program with the same qualifications had been enlisted under the program and were promoted to the pay grade of E-5. The Board granted relief in both of the applicant's cases (AR1999020793 and AR1999020967).

8. Army Regulation 601-210 provides policy and guidance for implementing the ACASP. It states, in pertinent part, that 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 and demonstrated duty performance if approved by the commander. Table 7-1 of that regulation states, in pertinent part, that persons enlisting in the ACASP for MOS 91K20P9 must possess as a minimum a bachelor’s degree with specialization in biology, chemistry toxicology, physiology, organic chemistry, physics, microbiology, zoology, parasitology, pharmacology, biochemistry, or other related physical science or medical allied science. They must also be certified as an MLT and approved for enlistment under the ACASP. Personnel approved for enlistment under this program will be enlisted in the pay grade of E-4 based on possession of a bachelor’s degree and may be advanced to the pay grade of E-5 contingent on the commander’s approval. Personnel who qualify for accelerated advancement to the pay grade of E-4 will be enlisted in the pay grade of E-3 for accelerated advance to the pay grade of E-4 contingent on the commander’s approval. Applicant’s will be informed that such accelerated advancements are not automatic and are contingent on their skill level and demonstrated duty performance. They must also be approved for enlistment in the MOS by the Chief Health Services Branch and must successfully complete the proficiency training required at the location of the assigned research project.

9. Army Regulation 611-201 provides the criteria for award of enlisted military occupational specialties. It provides, in pertinent part, that in order to qualify for award of MOS 91K (Biological Sciences Assistant), individuals must meet the civilian acquired skills criteria listed in Army Regulation 601-210, chapter 7.

10. That regulation also provides that the objectives of the ACASP is the enlistment of qualified personnel with civilian acquired skills needed by the Army, increased job satisfaction, reduction in training loads and costs and added means for mobilization.






DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1. The applicant was properly recruited and enlisted under the ACASP; however, through an administrative error, her contract failed to indicate that she was recruited under that program and that she could qualify for accelerated advancement to the pay grade of E-5 contingent on her commander’s approval.

2. Notwithstanding the advisory opinion from the G-1, the Board is convinced based on the evidence presented and the evidence of record that the applicant was informed that she was being recruited under the ACASP with the potential for accelerated advancement to the pay grade of E-5.

3. The Board notes that other individuals with essentially the same qualifications were recruited for the same program, attended the same course of instruction, and were granted accelerated promotion to the pay grade of E-5. The only difference between the applicant and at least two other individuals is that their contract specified enlistment under the ACASP and accelerated advancement. Therefore, the Board finds it inherently unfair that the applicant be penalized for the administrative error that resulted in the omission of her enlistment under the ACASP and accelerated promotion potential from her contract. The Board has previously granted relief in at least two identical cases.

4. The Board notes the G-1 opinion that the applicant did not qualify for enlistment under the ACASP because she did not attain the requisite qualifications until she completed her 91K training. However, in each instance in which personnel with the same circumstances were recruited for the Natick Labs positions under the ACASP, they also were required to attend 91K training and they received their accelerated promotions. It is apparent that she was recruited for her civilian acquired skills that would serve to complement her additional Army training.

5. The Board also notes that the applicable regulations require personnel enlisted into MOS 91K to undergo prerequisite training as a condition of their enlistment and that they must meet the criteria for enlistment under the ACASP before they can be enlisted. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the applicant was recruited under the ACASP, with the intent to grant her an accelerated promotion to the pay grade of E-5, if recommended and qualified for, in accordance with the applicable regulations. However, through an administrative oversight, her contract was not prepared to reflect such.




6. Accordingly, given the support of her chain of command and the supporting evidence, it would be in the interest of justice and equity, to grant the applicant’s request as an exception to policy by correcting her enlistment contract to show that she enlisted under the ACASP and that she was authorized accelerated promotion to the pay grade of E-5, effective 22 October 2002 (30 days after arrival at USARIEM), with entitlement to all back pay and allowances.

BOARD VOTE:

sac_____ rks _____ clg_____ GRANT RELIEF

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing that she enlisted on 7 June 2001 under the ACASP and that she was authorized an accelerated promotion to the pay grade of E-5 effective 22 October 2002, with entitlement to all back pay and allowances.





                  ___Samuel A. Crumpler___
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003089419
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20040203
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 1.319	131.0900/ADV GRD
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.