RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          16 June 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040006356


      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. Rosa M. Chandler              |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Raymond J. Wagner             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Delia R. Trimble              |     |Member               |

      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 his record be corrected to show
he was promoted to sergeant, pay grade E-5 with a date of rank (DOR) of 1
June 2003 versus 1 October 2003 in accordance with Army Regulation 601-210,
under the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program (ACASP).

2.  The applicant states no additional contentions.

3.  The applicant provides in support of his request:

      a.  Enlistment Contract and supporting documents.

      b.  Orders Number 23-03, 344th Military Intelligence Battalion (MI
BN) Goodfellow Air Force Base, dated 23 January 2003, assigning the
applicant to the 4th Cavalry (sic) Division Replacement Detachment Fort
Hood, Texas.

      c.  Orders Number 029-015, Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division, Fort
Hood, dated 29 January 2003, further assigning the applicant to the
104th MI BN, Fort Hood.

      d.  Orders Number 087-05, Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division, Fort
Hood, dated 27 March 2003, amending Order 029-015 to show the applicant's
effective date of assignment to Fort Hood was on or about 5 April 2003.

      e.  Orders Number 197-3, Detachment A, 502nd Personnel Services
Battalion, and a Certificate of Promotion to sergeant, effective 1 October
2003.

      f.  DA Forms 330 (Language Proficiency Questionnaire), dated 3 April
2003 and 2 August 2004.


      g.  Memorandum, 104th MI BN, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, dated
1 November 2004.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 25 February 2002, the applicant enlisted in the United States Army
Reserve (USAR) Delayed Entry Program (DEP) for 8 years.  On 20 June 2002,
he was discharged from the DEP and he enlisted in the Regular Army in
accordance with Army Regulation 601-210, under ACASP, for a period of
5 years, training in MOS 98G (Russian Linguist), a cash bonus/high grade
bonus in the amount of $19,000, and in the rank of private first class, pay
grade E-3.

2.  The available evidence shows the applicant completed the requirements
for award of MOS 98G and he was assigned to the 104th MI BN, in April 2003.


3.  On 1 December 2003, the applicant's battalion provided the Human
Resource Command (HRC), Alexandria, Virginia a memorandum in which he
stated the applicant had completed all requirements and he was proficient
in the performance of his duties as prescribed in accordance with Army
Regulation 601-210.  The battalion commander recommended that the applicant
receive an accelerated promotion to the rank of sergeant with an effective
DOR and DOR of 1 October 2003.

4.  On 1 October 2003, the applicant was promoted from private first class
to sergeant in MOS 98G, effective 1 October 2003 as recommended.

5.  In the processing of this case, on 1 October 2004, the Recruiting
Policy Branch, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-1 opined that if the
applicant enlisted under the ACASP for MOS 98G in the rank of private first
class and later appointment to sergeant, pay grade E-5, the following
action should occur:

      a.  Accelerated promotion to sergeant is authorized upon completion of
all required training (where applicable), 8 weeks of proficiency training
after arrival at the first duty station, and approval of the unit
commander.


      b.  Accelerated promotion to sergeant should coincide with the actual
completion date of the 8 weeks of proficiency training at the first duty
station, unless the commander takes action to deny or defer the accelerated
grade.
The commander must advise the Soldier in writing of the reason for denial
or deferment of the accelerated grade.

      c.  The opinion was based on regulatory guidance outlined in Army
Regulation 601-210, chapter 7, paragraph, 7-11, as well as the review of
the enclosed DD Form 149 and source documents.


      d.  The recommendation is a denial of relief for the applicant.  Based
on regulatory guidelines, there is not enough evidence available to
substantiate administrative relief.  The effective date of promotion should
coincide with the date the commander (lieutenant colonel or above) verified
completion of proficiency training and recommended promotion to sergeant.
The battalion commander's recommendation was not provided.
6.  On 7 October 2004, the above advisory opinion was referred to the
applicant for comment or rebuttal.  On 1 November 2004, the battalion
commander provided to this Board, on behalf of the applicant, a memorandum
stating, in effect, that the applicant's DOR is 1 October 2003 and that it
should be corrected to show that he had a DOR and effective DOR of 1 June
2003 in accordance with Army Regulation 601-210.  The Board was also
provided a DA Form 330, dated 4 April 2003, which shows the applicant's
degree of language proficiency (Russian) was evaluated on 3 April 2003.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) 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 with an effective date and DOR on the date all requirements are
met.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Even though the applicant’s battalion commander initially recommended
that he be promoted to sergeant with a DOR of 1 October 2003, he now
asserts the applicant met all the requirements for promotion to pay grade E-
5 under the ACASP program on 1 June 2003 and recommends that his record be
corrected to reflect that he be promoted to sergeant with a DOR and
effective DOR on this date.  There is no reason to doubt otherwise.

2.  It appears the error that occurred was due to no fault of the
applicant.  In the Interest of equity it would be appropriate to correct
his record to show his DOR and effective DOR is 1 June 2003.  He should
also receive all due pay and allowances in that grade effective on 1 June
2003.

BOARD VOTE:

__rjw___  __kwl___  __drt___  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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 the individual concerned was promoted to sergeant, pay grade E-5
with and effective DOR and DOR of 1 June 2003, with entitlement to all back
pay and allowances that he would have received had he been properly
promoted on
1 June 2003.



                 Raymond J. Wagner
            ______________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040006356                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050616                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(GRANT)                                 |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.0000                                |
|2.                      |131.0900                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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