RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        26 July 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040007893


      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. Prevolia Harper               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr.        |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Leonard G. Hassell            |     |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 that his enlistment contract be corrected to
reflect that he enlisted under the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program
(ACASP) with a promotion to E-5, effective 29 January 2003, in accordance
with Army Regulation's  600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) and
601-210 chapter 7-11 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program).

2.  The applicant states he has promotion orders establishing his date of
rank (DOR) for the rank of sergeant/pay grade E-5 effective 29 January
2003.

3.  The applicant provides:

      a.  A memorandum from Delta Detachment, 556th Personnel Services
Battalion, dated 23 July 2004, showing that the applicant entered the Army
under ACASP and met the requirements for promotion effective 29 January
2003.

      b.  A memorandum from the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security
Command, dated 19 March 2003, recommending that the applicant be promoted
to the rank of sergeant/pay grade E-5.

      c.  A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 12 March 2003,
recommending that the applicant be promoted to E-5 under ACASP.

      d.  Orders Number 118-27, Headquarters, 556th Personnel Service
Battalion (Hawaii) promoting the applicant from specialist to sergeant with
an effective date of 29 January 2003.

      e.  A memorandum from the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security
Command, dated 11 March 2003, recommending that the applicant be promoted
to sergeant.

      f.  A memorandum for record from the Senior Language Advocate, dated
4 March 2003, stating that the applicant’s enlistment contract should have
been written as ACASP.

      g.  An Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, dated 17 August 2001,
which shows that the applicant enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program on  
17 August 2001.

      h.  A Statement for Enlistment and Statement of Understanding U.S.
Army Incentive Enlistment Program.


      i.  A Certificate of Training, dated 14 June 2002, which shows that
the applicant completed the Electronic Warfare/Voice Interceptor (Russian)
Course.

      j.  Orders Number 141-21, Personnel Service Center, 344th Military
Intelligence Battalion, dated 21 May 2002.

      k.  A Language Proficiency Questionnaire which shows his scores for
his foreign language training.

      l.  A Record Firing Scorecard and Army Physical Fitness Test
Scorecard.

      m.  An Army Training Requirements and Resources System document.

      n.  A letter from the 125th Finance Battalion at Schofield Barracks,
Hawaii, dated 8 April 2002.

      o.  An Enlisted Record Brief.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 17 August 2001, the applicant enlisted in the United States Army
Reserve (USAR) Delayed Entry Program (DEP) for 8 years.  He was discharged
from the DEP and enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 October 2001 in the pay
grade E-4 for training in MOS 98XL10 (Electronic Warfare/ Signal
Intelligence) enlistment incentive.  His contract does not mention the
ACASP.

2.  On 14 June 2002, the applicant completed the Electronic Warfare/Voice
Interceptor (Russian) Course.  Orders Number 118-27 show the applicant was
promoted from specialist to sergeant in the MOS 98G with an effective date
of 29 January 2003.

3.  On 11 March 2003, the 732nd Military Intelligence Battalion commander
recommended that the applicant be promoted to sergeant under the ACASP.
The commander also stated that the applicant had performed duties in the
MOS 98G since 5 December 2002 and that his date of rank was 29 January
2003.

4.  On 19 March 2003, the applicant's battalion commander recommended that
he be promoted to sergeant and that he had met all the criteria for
advancement under ACASP in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-19.



5.  On 28 April 2003, the Headquarters, 556th Personnel Service Battalion
published Orders Number 118-27 promoting the applicant to sergeant.  The
authority cited for the promotion was shown as Army Regulation 600-9-19,
paragraph 3-7e (Special Promotion Categories; Army Acquired Skills
Program).

6.  In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained
from the Senior Army Recruiting Policy and Programs Manager, Recruiting
Policy Branch, of the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-1, who opined
that, if the applicant enlisted under the ACASP for MOS 98G, in the rank of
specialist and later appointed 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.  The opinion recommended
administrative relief for the applicant and that he [the applicant] should
be promoted based on regulatory guidance.  The effective date of promotion
should coincide with the date the applicant completed the proficiency
training and the commander (lieutenant colonel or above) recommended the
promotion to sergeant.


7.  On 19 October 2004, the above advisory opinion was referred to the
applicant for comment or rebuttal and he failed to respond.

8.  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.





9.  Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 7-11 states that accelerated
promotion of persons enlisted under the ACASP will be made either with
approval of the unit commander or by the training commander for active Army
personnel after successful completion of all training required by the
enlistment program selected. For Regular Army soldiers, this includes 8
weeks of successful performance in the skill.  The accelerated grade will
be awarded to qualified soldiers without regard to time in grade, time in
service, or promotion allocation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It appears that an error was made during the processing of the
applicant's enlistment paperwork and that the applicant was eligible for
enlistment under the ACASP.

2.  Notwithstanding the applicant's enlistment contract, his command
believed he was being recruited against their special mission for skilled
linguist accessions under the ACASP with the potential for accelerated
advancement to the pay grade of E-5.

3.  Due to the administrative error, the applicant's contract failed to
indicate that he was recruited under that program and that he could qualify
for accelerated advancement to the pay grade of E-5 contingent on his
commander’s approval.

4.  The applicant's battalion commander stated that the applicant met the
requirements of the ACASP for promotion to pay grade E-5, which would have
made him eligible for promotion to E-5 with a date of rank of 29 January
2003, after he completed eight weeks of successful performance in the
skill.

5.  Accordingly, given the support of his chain of command, the supporting
evidence, and his commander's recommendation, it would be in the interest
of justice and equity to grant the applicant’s request as an exception to
policy by correcting his enlistment contract to show that he enlisted under
the ACASP and that he was authorized accelerated promotion to the pay grade
of E-5 effective
29 January 2003 with entitlement to all back pay and allowances.









BOARD VOTE:

__lds___  __phm___  __lgh___  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 that he enlisted on 25 October 2001 under the ACASP and that he was
authorized an accelerated promotion to the pay grade of E-5 effective
29 January 2003 with entitlement to all back pay and allowances.




                                  Linda D. Simmons
                            ______________________
                                      CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040007893                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050726                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.0500                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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