RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            25 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040010784


      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:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald E. Blakely             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Linda M. Barker               |     |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 records be corrected to show he
enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) in the grade of E-5.

2.  The applicant states he approached a recruiter in April of 2002 and
informed the recruiter he was a prior service commissioned officer and
wanted to enlist to complete his 20 years.  The recruiter told him he would
be the first prior service officer he was to enlist.  The recruiter said he
would try to get him an E-5 slot but had to enlist him into a slot that was
available, which could be at a lower rank.  The applicant later found out
that statement was erroneous and he should have been enlisted as an E-5.

3.  The applicant states he was enlisted as an E-4 on 9 August 2002 and was
assigned to Company C, 230th Support Battalion as a medical supply
specialist, an E-4 slot.  When he reported to his first drill and the
battalion operations officer learned of his background, the operations
officer said he was going to make the applicant one of his battle captains.
 The applicant was placed in the intelligence analyst slot with a military
occupational specialty (MOS) of 96B, an E-5 position.  He went to the first
available MOS-producing school in June 2003 and completed phase 1 of a 4-
phase course.  He was mobilized, so he could not complete the next phase.
His supervisors requested he be promoted; however, the requests were denied
because he was not MOS-qualified.

4.  The applicant states National Guard Regulation 600-200 states
enlistment to E-5 is based upon an officer's prior experience.  His prior
experience is vast.  He was at one time a battalion intelligence officer,
the very position of the person he now works for.  He has since met many
former officers within the brigade, some of them former lieutenants and
captains, all of whom were enlisted as E-5s.  It is unfair that he, a
former major, was not enlisted as an E-5.

5.  The applicant provides no supporting evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was commissioned in the U. S. Army Reserve out of the
Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) around May 1977.  He entered active
duty on 16 October 1977.  He was promoted to major on 1 September 1989.  He
was released from active duty on 27 January 1993 and transferred to the U.
S. Army Reserve.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the ARNG on 9 August 2002 in pay grade E-4
for one year.  His enlistment contract is not available.  He has since had
at least two extensions.

3.  In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from
the Personnel Division, National Guard Bureau.  The advisory opinion noted
National Guard Regulation 600-200 no longer covers Enlistment Criteria
Management (ECM) for applicants wishing to join the National Guard; ECM is
now covered by Army National Guard Enlistment Program, Enlistment Criteria.
 Table 2-2 of this document states prior service officers without prior
enlisted service can be enlisted up and including the grade of E-5.  It
further states the Military Personnel Office determines the authorized
grade of enlistment based on previous experience and position vacancy
availability.  The advisory opinion noted that, based on the applicant's
experience and regulatory guidance, it appeared he was qualified to enlist,
as a former officer, in the grade of E-5.  The advisory opinion recommended
the applicant's records be corrected to show he enlisted as an     E-5,
with a date of rank of 9 August 2002, and that he be provided all pay and
allowances he is due.

4.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for
comment or rebuttal.  He concurred with the advisory opinion.

5.  Army National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management),
version dated 1 March 1997, chapter 2 prescribed policy and eligibility
standards for the enlistment of persons with or without prior service into
the ARNG until it was superseded.  Paragraph 2-11 stated all enlistments
would be made against position vacancies.  A position was a valid position
vacancy if it was vacant and no Soldier in the unit who was excess was
qualified for assignment to it or the Soldier in the position would be
separated within 6 months of the applicant's date of enlistment.  Table 2-4
provided the enlistment pay grade and date of rank rules for prior service
personnel.  Rule F stated, if an applicant was a former officer or warrant
officer and had never held an enlisted rank, he could be enlisted up to pay
grade E-5.

6.  Army National Guard Enlistment Program, Enlistment Criteria, paragraph
    1-11 states all enlistments will be made against position vacancies.  A
position is a valid position vacancy if it is vacant and there are no
qualified excess Soldiers in the unit that may be assigned to it or the
position will be vacated within           12 months of the applicant's date
of enlistment.  Table 2-2, Rule S states if an applicant is a former
officer or warrant officer without prior service he may be
enlisted up to and including pay grade E-5.  The Military Personnel Office
determines the authorized grade of enlistment based on previous experience
and position vacancy availability.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions, prior experience and the recommendation of
the advisory opinion have been carefully considered.  However, both he and
the advisory misquote the regulation(s).  His recruiter gave him correct
information.

2.  Both National Guard Regulation 600-200, which the applicant cites, and
Army National Guard Enlistment Program, Enlistment Criteria, which the
advisory opinion cites, requires first and foremost that an enlistment be
made against a position vacancy.  Army National Guard Enlistment Program
Enlistment Criteria, Table 2-2, Rule S states if an applicant is a former
officer or warrant officer without prior service he may be enlisted up to
(emphasis added) and including pay grade E-5.  The Military Personnel
Office determines authorized grade of enlistment based on previous
experience and (emphasis added) position vacancy availability.

3.  It is noted the applicant appears to have been enlisted for an E-4
position vacancy as a medical supply specialist.  The applicant also states
he was soon moved to an intelligence analyst E-5 position.  However, he
provides no evidence that the E-5 position was a valid vacancy he could
have enlisted for and no evidence it was only an oversight that he was not
enlisted for that position.  Therefore, notwithstanding the recommendation
of the advisory opinion, there is no basis on which to grant the relief
requested.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__mkp___  __reb___  __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.




            _Margaret K. Patterson
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040010784                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050825                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |112.02                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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