RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           22 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050009085


      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. Thomas A. Pagan               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Eric N. Anderson              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Joe R. Schroeder              |     |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 the Army afford him attendance
at the Defense Language Institute (DLI) as a civilian or that the Army
compensate him monetarily to acquire a language on his own.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he had hopes to qualify for
enlistment under the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program (ACASP) but he
failed the Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT) at the Military
Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) and did not meet the criteria for that
program.  He further states that he enlisted in the Army with the
expectations of receiving training for military occupational specialty
(MOS) 97E and the appropriate language training, which was required by the
MOS.  However, despite the fact that he believed that he would attend
language training after completing advanced individual training (AIT), he
was never afforded the language training required by the appropriate
regulation.  Accordingly, the Army should honor its obligation to provide
him training by either sending him to the DLI as a civilian or by providing
him the financial means to acquire a language on his own.

3.  The applicant provides a two-page self-authored letter explaining his
contentions and an appendix of documents containing 10 appendices.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  He was born on 16 December 1966 and enlisted in the United States Army
Reserve (USAR) under the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on 21 June 2000 for a
period of 8 years, training in MOS 97E1L (Interrogator), a cash enlistment
bonus and enrollment in the Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP).

2.  On 3 October 2000, he renegotiated his enlistment contract and enlisted
in the Regular Army in the pay grade of E-4, for a period of 5 years,
training as an interrogator in military occupational specialty (MOS) 97E10,
enrollment in the Student Loan Repayment Program and a cash enlistment
bonus of $15,000.  His enlistment contract (DD Form 1966/3) indicates that
he failed the DLPT and was not qualified for the ACASP.  He was authorized
enlistment into MOS 97E10 without an English Comprehension Level Test
(ECLT).

3.  His USAREC Form 1150 (Statement of Understanding) indicates that he was
granted an exception to policy and was authorized to enlist in MOS 97E10
without a passing DLPT score and ECLT score on 29 September 2000.

4.  He successfully completed his basic combat training and was transferred
to Fort Huachuca, Arizona, where he completed a 35-week course in MOS 97E10
(interrogator) before being transferred to a military intelligence company
in Wurzburg, Germany, on 13 November 2001.

5.  It appears that the applicant’s security clearance was revoked by the
Central Personnel Security Clearance Facility while the applicant was
deployed to Kosovo because his company and battalion commander as well as
the battalion S-3 all submitted letters in his behalf requesting that his
clearance be reinstated. He served in Kosovo from 1 November 2002 to 28
July 2003.  His records also show that his foreign language proficiency pay
(FLPP) was stopped on 18 July 2003.  It appears that he was reassigned to
another military intelligence unit in Darmstadt, Germany in December 2003.

6.  Documents contained in his records indicate that he was proficient in
three languages, German, Russian, and Ukrainian, and that he had a Bachelor
of Arts degree in Russian and a Masters Degree in International Affairs.

7.  On 1 May 2004, he was discharged under honorable conditions under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol
rehabilitation failure.  He had served 3 years, 6 months and 29 days of
total active service and did not complete his first full term of service.

8.  Army Regulation 601-210 prescribes the eligibility criteria for
enlistment in the Regular Army and the USAR.  It provides, in pertinent
part, that when a breach of enlistment commitments occurs, the service
member has a reasonable time to present a claim (The time period is
normally 30 days).  The time period starts from the date the member is
informed that his or her commitment will not be honored, or he or she
discovers that the commitment has been breached.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that the Army did not fulfill its commitment
to provide him language training has been noted and found to be without
merit.

2.  The applicant originally attempted to enlist under the ACASP based on
his language skills at the time and failed the DLPT that was required to
enlist under that program.  However, he was granted an exception to policy
in a renegotiated contract and was allowed to enlist in MOS 97E10.

3.  At the time of his enlistment in the Regular Army, there was no
contractual agreement between the Army and the applicant (written or
implied) that indicates that he would be afforded language training and the
applicant signed a statement of understanding to that effect.  Accordingly,
there is no basis to grant his request.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__tap___  __ena___  __jrs___  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.




                 Thomas A. Pagan
            ______________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050009085                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051122                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES                  |226/BRKN ENL COM                        |
|1.112.0400              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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