RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            29 June 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040000853


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Linda M. Barker               |     |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 reconsideration of the prior Board action and
rescission of its favorable decision of 9 December 2003 (Docket Number
AR2003097477) changing his enlistment contract to show he contracted for
    3 years and 00 weeks rather than 6 years and 00 weeks and to show he
enlisted in pay grade E-3 rather than pay grade E-4.

2.  The applicant states that he is not sure where the request that his
enlistment contract be changed originated and it was not his intent to
change his contract.  His original contract indeed shows that he enlisted
at pay grade E-4 and for a term of 6 years.  He also enlisted for a cash
bonus of $5,000 which he will not now receive.  He feels that the request
was submitted on his behalf in error as he personally never would have done
it.

3.  The applicant provides his original enlistment contract.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant was born on 23 May 1971.  On 25 August 2003, he enlisted
in the U. S. Army Reserve (Delayed Enlistment Program).  He had had
extensive prior civilian experience in the automotive repair field.  An
undated letter from an individual at Team Dodge of Union City, GA indicated
the applicant had worked for Team Dodge for about 1 year and his job
included electrical and fuel repair.  It also indicated that the applicant
had worked in that capacity for at least 4 of the  6 years the individual
had known the applicant.

2.  One of the applicant's original enlistment documents, a printout headed
"RAGET" (acronym unknown), indicated he would enlist for 6 years at an
advanced rank (the rank not listed) by reason of the Army Civilian Acquired
Skills Program (ACASP) for an enlisted job of 63G1O00YY with only one
enlistment option – station of choice, Europe.  No incentives were listed.

3.  Another of the applicant's original enlistment documents, a USMEPCOM
(illegible) 714ADP, indicated he would enlist for 6 years at pay grade E-4
in military occupational specialty 63D1O.

4.  A third of the applicant's original enlistment documents, a printout
headed "CONGRATULATIONS!  A SUCCESSFUL RESERVATION WAS COMPLETED FOR,"
indicated he would enlist for job 63D1 for a term of 6 years and 0 weeks
with the options of training of choice and a cash bonus of $5,000 for a 6-
year enlistment.

5.  A second set of enlistment documents (date of preparation unknown) is
available.  The new printout headed "RAGET" indicated he would enlist for
        3 years at an advanced rank (the rank not listed) by reason of the
ACASP for an enlisted job of 63G1O00YY with only one enlistment option –
station of choice, Europe.  No incentives were listed.

6.  The new printout headed "CONGRATULATIONS!  A SUCCESSFUL RESERVATION WAS
COMPLETED FOR" indicated he would enlist for job 63G1 for a term of 3 years
and 0 weeks with the option of station of choice – Europe and no bonus.

7.  On 25 August 2003, the applicant also signed a Statement for Enlistment
United States Army Enlistment Program U. S. Army Delayed Enlistment
Program.  This document indicated the applicant would enlist in the Regular
Army for a period of 6 years and 00 weeks for the U. S. Army Training
Enlistment Program option and the U. S. Army Incentive Enlistment program
(U. S. Army Cash Bonus, 6-year enlistment) option.

8.  On 7 October 2003, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 6
years and 00 weeks in pay grade E-4.

9.  On 15 October 2003, the U. S. Army Recruiting Command, Fort Sill, Army
Liaison prepared a memorandum for record indicating the applicant's DD Form
4/3 would be corrected to show his term of enlistment as 3 years and 00
weeks and to show his pay grade as E-3.

10.  On 16 October 2003, the applicant signed a DA Form 3286-64 (Statement
for Enlistment United States Army Station/Unit/Command/Area Enlistment
Program).  This document indicated he was enlisting for MOS 63G1O (ACASP),
for station of choice – Europe, and for a period of 3 years.

11.  On 16 October 2003, the applicant also signed a DA Form 3286-68
(Statement for Enlistment United States Army/Army Reserve Civilian Acquired
Skills Enlistment Program).  This document indicated that his civilian-
acquired skills as a 63G Fuel and Electrical System Repairer were being
recognized for enlistment and he would be advanced to pay grade E-4 in
accordance with the governing regulation.

12.  On 16 October 2003, the applicant signed a DD Form 149 (Application
for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U. S.
Code, Section 1552).  This form indicated that he requested correction of
his enlistment contract to show his term of service as 3 years and 00 weeks
and his pay grade as E-3.

13.  On 9 December 2003, the Board granted the applicant's request.  On
       9 January 2004, the U. S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation
Center corrected the applicant's records per the Board's directive.
14.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from
the Senior Army Recruiting Policy Noncommissioned Officer, Recruiting
Policy Branch, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-1.  That official
acknowledged that an enlistment contract is a binding commitment between
the Army and the applicant; however, when errors occur during the
enlistment process applicable regulations outline guidance to correct them.
 The applicant's contract and related addendums reflect errors that were
committed during his enlistment process.  His enlistment MOS under the
ACASP should have been 63G, his term of service should have been for 3
years, and he should not have been authorized an enlistment bonus because a
cash bonus was not available for MOS 63G when he enlisted.  The errors were
identified upon his arrival at the Fort Sill, OK reception battalion and
the Liaison Noncommissioned Officer took appropriate action to correct
those errors by ensuring the applicant submitted a DD Form 149 to the Board
for correction of his military records.  That official recommended the
applicant's current request not be granted.

15.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for
comment or rebuttal.  He stated that he was able to enlist at grade E-4
with proof of prior service in the Army National Guard and prior training
as an automotive mechanic.  His recruiter had his school transcript from
several different automotive manufacturers converted to college semester
hours.  Upon arriving at Fort Sill, his agreement with the Army was changed
by the liaison the day he was to ship to basic.  He feels that was indeed a
breach of contract.  They changed his MOS to 63G, took away an enlistment
bonus of $5,000, and changed his obligation period from 6 years to 3 years.
 That has caused a lot of confusion and distress.  (There is no evidence in
the applicant's enlistment documents or on his Enlisted Record Brief dated
7 May 2004 that he had prior service.  There is no evidence in his records
that he completed any education except that related to automotive repair
other than high school).

16.  MOS 63D is Self-Propelled Field Artillery System Mechanic.  MOS 63G is
Fuel and Electrical Systems Repairer.

17.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment
Program), chapter 7 states 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.  One of the
objectives of the ACASP is to reduce training loads and costs.  Table 7-1
provides for enlistment under the ACASP in MOS 63G with later appointment
to pay grade E-4.  The individual must have 2 years of experience or a
combination of formal training and experience totaling 2 years in repair of
automotive fuel and electrical systems.

18.  Army Regulation 601-210 states that the date of rank for persons
without prior service enlisting in the Regular Army will be the date of
enlistment on active duty.  Applicants who have successfully completed a
degree producing college program of 4 years duration and the college or
university is properly accredited are authorized enlistment in pay grade E-
4.  Completion of more than 48 semester hours but without a degree
authorizes enlistment in pay grade E-3.  Completion of more than 24 but
less than 48 semester hours authorizes enlistment in pay grade E-2.

19.  Army Regulation 601-210 also states that, if an individual last
separated from any Component or is a current member of a Reserve component
in grade  of E-4 with not more than 5 years of active Federal service, and
enlists within    24 months from date of separation, the enlistment grade
will be E-4.  Term of enlistment will be for 3 years only.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It appears clear that the applicant originally intended to enlist under
the ACASP as a result of his extensive education in and prior experience in
the field of automotive fuel and electrical systems repair.

2.  It is not clear that the applicant would have been eligible to enlist
in pay grade E-4 for any reason.  There is no evidence of record to verify
his contention, in his rebuttal to the advisory opinion, that he had prior
service.  There is no evidence that he completed a degree producing college
program of 4 years duration or that he was credited with any semester hours
based on his education in the automotive field.

3.  It is clear that errors were made in the applicant's enlistment
process.  It cannot be determined how the first set of documents (the
printout headed "RAGET", the USMEPCOM (illegible) 714ADP, and the printout
headed "CONGRATULATIONS!  A SUCCESSFUL RESERVATION WAS COMPLETED FOR") came
to reflect such disparate information (i.e., enlisted for MOS 63G, enlisted
for MOS 63D; enlisted for no bonus, enlisted for a cash bonus; enlisted for
ACASP, enlisted for training of choice).  However, it is clear that the
applicant did not obtain the skills to perform duties as a 63D, Self-
Propelled Field Artillery System Mechanic, in civilian life.

4.  The second set of enlistment documents (the new printout headed "RAGET"
and the new printout headed "CONGRATULATIONS!  A SUCCESSFUL RESERVATION WAS
COMPLETED FOR") appear to properly reflect the original indication that the
applicant intended to enlist for the ACASP in an MOS, 63G, related to his
civilian experience in the automotive fuel and electrical repair field.
This appears to be borne out when, on 16 October 2003, the applicant signed
a DA Form 3286-64 indicating he was enlisting for MOS 63G (ACASP), for
station of choice – Europe, for a period of 3 years and a DA Form 3286-68
indicating that his civilian-acquired skills as a 63G Fuel and Electrical
System Repairer were being recognized for enlistment and he would be
advanced to (not enlisted in) pay grade E-4 in accordance with the
governing regulation.

5.  The applicant's signing of the DA Forms 3286-64 and 3286-68 are
consistent with the corrections requested on his DD Form 149 dated 16
October 2003.

6.  The applicant provides no compelling evidence to show that he did not
understand what he originally intended to enlist for, that he did not
understand what he was requesting when he signed the DD Form 149 dated 16
October 2003, or that he did not intend to make that request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__sac___  __le____  __lmb___  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.




            __Samuel A. Crumpler__
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040000853                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040629                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |112.03                                  |
|2.                      |112.04                                  |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |