RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        5 December 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050015207


      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. John J. Wendland, Jr.         |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Donald W. Steenfott           |     |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 her enlistment contract be
corrected to show that she participated in the Junior Reserve Officer
Training Corps (JROTC) program; that she enlisted in the grade of E-2, was
advanced to the grade of E-3, and payment of all back pay as a result of
these corrections; payment of an enlistment bonus (EB) in the amount of
$5,000; repayment of loans under the Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP);
and referral to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and/or Physical Evaluation
Board (PEB) for a disability rating determination due to a service-
connected back injury.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, her application is based on
administrative error on the part of Army recruiters during the enlistment
process; failure of Army officials to provide adequate assistance to
correct administrative errors; threats of discharge for pursuing the
correction of her military records; failure of Army officials to provide
accurate information; failure of command personnel to submit and approve
tuition payments in a timely manner; lack of support and counsel from
senior Army personnel to assist the applicant in meeting Army standards;
lack of support and guidance from senior Army personnel with respect to the
applicant's medical processing; improper discharge; failure of the
Inspector General to conduct an independent investigation concerning due
process with respect to the applicant's participation in the Army Weight
Control Program (AWCP), physical profile, Army Physical Fitness Test
(APFT), and administrative discharge; her disparate treatment by command
personnel; and acts of retaliation by senior Army officials.

     a.  The applicant states that she completed JROTC prior to enlisting
in the Army National Guard (ARNG) and presented her JROTC certificate to
her recruiter; however, Army recruiters advised her that JROTC did not
entitle her to enter the service as a private (PVT)/pay grade E-2, so she
was enlisted as a private (PVT)/pay grade E-1.  She adds that the
subsequent enlistment process entailed initialing and signing a large
volume of forms and admits that she initialed a pre-checked block that the
recruiters had filled out indicating that she had not been enrolled in
JROTC.  However, she maintains that the recruiters were aware of her
participation in JROTC, but also failed in their responsibility to
correctly prepare the enlistment documents showing that she had
participated in JROTC.  The applicant states that she later learned during
basic combat training (BCT) that she was entitled to enter the Army as a
PVT/E-2 and be advanced to the rank of private first class (PFC)/pay grade
E-3 upon completion of advanced individual training (AIT), but was told by
several Army officials that she would have to pursue correction of her rank
after BCT.  At her AIT station she was then
told that she would have to pursue correction of her rank when she returned
to her home station.  Upon returning to her home station in December 2000,
the applicant attempted to resolve the issue regarding JROTC and her
enlistment grade.  She was provided guidance to submit her request in
writing, which she did, but with no results.  She maintains that due to
frequent changes in the command's leadership she did not complete the APFT
within her first year of service, which contributed to her inability to
complete the requirement that would enable her to receive her EB and
entitlements under the SLRP.  She adds, in effect, that the unit
administrator, a noncommissioned officer (NCO), appeared to have full-time
responsibility for administration within the unit and she informed him of
her issue regarding JROTC and her enlistment grade; however, her requests
for assistance were not acted upon.  She maintains that over the next two
years her requests for assistance continued to be met with erroneous
information, ignored, and/or dismissed.  She adds, in effect, that in three
years her unit had three commanders and a constant turnover of NCOs who
failed to provide her guidance and assistance.

     b.  The applicant also states, in effect, that her stepfather had a
conversation with an administrative officer (AO) at the unit who threatened
to discharge the applicant if she continued to pursue the issue of JROTC
and her advancement in grade.  She adds that the AO stated that the
applicant initialed her enlistment document indicating she had not been
enrolled in JROTC as part of her enlistment contract.  The AO also
indicated that if the applicant now states that she had been enrolled in
JROTC it would be a fraudulent enlistment.  She states that the AO further
offered that the applicant did not meet the Army standard for height and
weight, so she would not be able to reenter the Army.  The applicant offers
that she had been put on the AWCP, but had also been diagnosed with
polycystic ovarian syndrome, which can cause periods of excess weight.
However, she states she was not given a thorough medical examination prior
to being put on the AWCP.  The applicant asserts that the AO was intent
upon having her discharged, used the unit commander's signature stamp in
processing her discharge, and points to the email message strings, a
counseling statement, and her physical profile as evidence.

     c.  The applicant states that in February 2001 she inquired at her
unit as to when she would receive her EB and repayment of her student loans
under the SLRP.  She also states that a pay inquiry was submitted for her
EB and she submitted an application for payment of her student loans under
the SLRP.  Then, in September 2002, the applicant was informed that she was
not eligible for the EB or SLRP because she was not military occupational
specialty (MOS) qualified.  The applicant explains she injured her back
during BCT in August
2000 and was unable to take her final APFT; however, she was not placed in
a remedial physical training program or offered any alternatives, nor
counseled as to her options concerning MOS qualification, as required by
Army Regulation
135-178 (Enlisted Administrative Separations).  She adds that, according to
the Virginia (VA) ARNG State Medical Officer, based on her service-
connected injury and in line of duty status, she was not required to pass
the standard APFT in order to receive MOS qualification.  Regarding her
assertions concerning the lack of accurate information provided to her and
mismanagement within the ARNG, the applicant offers as evidence the fact
that the VA ARNG, Office of the Inspector General (IG), provided guidance
contrary to the VA ARNG State Medical Officer, the existing National Guard
regulatory guidance, and information in her enlistment contract.  The
applicant adds that during her enlistment she has had to obtain additional
loans and pay her own tuition because of the inaccurate information and
inefficiencies of her unit's staff personnel.

     d.  The applicant also states, in effect, that she was not afforded
due process with respect to the development of action plans to administer
and track needed progress in the AWCP and pass the APFT.  She offers that
this is evidenced by the lack of counseling statements in her case.  She
adds that she did not receive adequate profiles for the back injury she
sustained during BCT and, in the fall of 2002, learned that if she was
issued a permanent physical profile, it would allow her to take an
alternate APFT and perhaps obtain MOS qualification.  However, upon
obtaining a permanent physical profile, the applicant was unable to pass
the alternate APFT due to the pain she experienced.  Later in April 2004,
the applicant was issued an amended permanent physical profile and was able
to successfully pass the alternate APFT.  The applicant states that she
documented her efforts to obtain assistance with her medical issues and the
lack of assistance she got from NCOs in her unit, and provided this
information to the IG.  She adds, in effect, that the issue (i.e.,
successfully passing the APFT) that took 3 years to resolve, could have
been resolved in a matter of a couple of months, provided the NCOs in her
unit and the 54th Field Artillery Battalion
(54th FA Bn), Medical Liaison Officer (LNO) had provided the necessary
guidance and assistance.

     e.  The applicant further states that, according to the unit's Judge
Advocate General (JAG) officer, an MEB was initiated on her in December
2003 by the
54th FA Bn, Medical LNO; however, she was unaware of this fact and was not
informed of the results of the MEB.  She states that when she received her
P3 permanent physical profile from the Army medical officer at Walter Reed
Army Medical Center (WRAMC), she was told it would prompt a review by
medical officials at the state level of the VA ARNG.  She adds that Army
Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) requires that Soldiers
being separated be given a medical interview and examination and that a
Soldier should not be discharged until the resolution of any medical
issues.  However, she maintains that she was never notified of the medical
review, or that an MEB had been initiated, and was not informed of the
results of the MEB despite repeated requests for information.

     f.  The applicant states that the unit AO failed to consult or notify
her chain-of-command regarding the final discharge proceedings and
maintains that the AO processed her discharge without the knowledge of the
commanding officer, using an electronic signature.  The applicant adds, in
effect, that she had no idea she was being discharged, particularly since
she passed her APFT in April 2004.  However, in May 2004, after receiving
conflicting information about her discharge, the applicant was notified by
her commander that she was discharged and should not report for duty.  The
applicant maintains that her administrative discharge for failure to
complete the APFT was orchestrated by the unit AO and circumvented the
applicant's medical review board process.  She concludes by stating, in
effect, that her administrative discharge was improper and unjust.

     g.  The applicant also states that the VA ARNG, Office of the IG,
refused to perform an independent investigation into her allegations, make
an objective assessment, and take corrective action, if necessary.  The
applicant provides a list of unanswered questions relating to her discharge
and the legitimacy of the processes used that center on the commander's
responsibilities, involvement of the unit's AO with regard to her
discharge, her physical profile in relation to taking and passing the APFT,
and the medical review process prior to being discharged.  The applicant
also indicates that Offices of the IG at both the VA ARNG and NGB made
identical statements in their responses to her allegations and in their
conclusions.  She further maintains that the Offices of the IG at both VA
ARNG and NGB levels refused to acknowledge or answer her allegations.

     h.  The applicant also states that she experienced acts of retaliation
and offers as evidence the fact that her commander attempted to provide her
temporary relief through an immediate promotion, but was thwarted by senior
Army officials. She adds that her promotion was immediately rescinded after
senior Army officers at the state level learned of her request for an IG
investigation.

     i.  The applicant concludes by stating that the IG failed to produce
records or evidence that she had received the necessary support and
counseling from her supervisors and other Army officials to assist her in
the matters she presents in this case.  She states that when a Soldier is
found unfit, due process must
include evidence of repeated counseling; medical screening prior to
entrance into programs; contact with the medical officer issuing the
profile, if the Soldier is still unable to perform as required;
nutrient/medical education sessions conducted by qualified health care
professionals prior to entrance into programs; plans to achieve the
standard; documented periodic reviews to monitor progress; and referral to
a PEB.  However, the applicant adds that, based on these Army guidelines,
she was not afforded due process in either the AWCP or the APFT for
Soldiers with a physical profile, or in the administrative discharge
process.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of her
application:  a 17-page self-authored statement; Military Training
Certificate, Reserve Officers' Training Corps, dated 11 October 2000; Grand
Rapids Public Schools, JROTC webpage, printed 20 March 2005; Lucy C. Laney
High School JROTC, undated letter to all new JROTC Cadets, subject:  Lucy
C. Laney U.S. Army JROTC Program; DD Form 1966-Series (Military Processing
- Armed Forces of the United States), dated 9 June 2000; DD Form 4-Series
(Enlistment/Reenlistment Document - Armed Forces of the United States),
dated 9 June 2000; NGB Form 600-7-1-R-E (Annex E to DD Form 4, Enlistment
Bonus Addendum, Army National Guard of the United States), dated 9 June
2000; NGB Form 600-7-5-R-E (Annex S to DD Form 4, Student Loan Repayment
Program Addendum, Army National Guard of the United States), dated 9 June
2000; Headquarters, Dwight David Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort
Gordon, Georgia, memorandum, dated 4 October 2000, subject:
Reserve/National Guard Letter of Instruction for Follow-up Care; DA Form
2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status), dated 5 October
2000; Standard Form (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated
23 October 2000; Reserve Component Liaison letter, dated 14 November 2000,
subject:  Non-graduate from MOS Training; DA Form 4856 (Counseling
Statement), dated 14 November 2000; DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty), with an effective date of 15 November 2000; DA
Form 2173, dated 31 October 2001, with endorsement of approved Line of Duty
Investigation; AG of VA Form 600-4-R (Authorized to Medical Care at DOD
Medical Treatment Facility), approved 15 November 2001; DA Form 2823 (Sworn
Statement), by applicant, dated 1 November 2001;
DA Form 2823, by SFC E___ R. G___, dated 1 November 2001; email message
string, dated 31 October 2003, subject:  Draft Letter - [Applicant's Name]
Pay Grade; DA Form 4856, dated 16 November 2003; email message string,
dated 21 January 2004, subject:  Draft Letter - [Applicant's Name] Pay
Grade; two
DA Forms 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 5 April 2001 and 13 May 2002;
automated version of SF 600, dated 5 April 2001; DA Form 5181-R (Screening
Note of Acute Medical Care), dated 16 October 2000; SF 513 (Consultation
Sheet), dated 5 April 2001; SF 519-B (Radiologic Examination Report), dated
5 April 2001; DA Form 7349-R (Initial Medical Review - Annual Medical
Certificate), dated 26 February 2004; DA Form 3349, dated 30 January 2004;
applicant's letter to the VA ARNG, Office of the Inspector General,
undated; email message string, dated 23 January 2004, subject:  IG Case;
Virginia Commonwealth University, Medical Center, letter, dated 29
September 2004, subject:  [Applicant]; Headquarters, Office of the
Inspector General, Joint Force Headquarters - Virginia, Blackstone,
Virginia, letter, dated 20 February 2004; applicant's letter to the Chief,
National Guard Bureau, Office of the Inspector General, dated 5 March 2004;
letter from applicant's mother to National Guard Bureau, Office of the
Inspector General, dated 27 May 2004; Headquarters, National Guard Bureau,
Office of the Inspector General, letter, dated 22 June 2004; DA Form 705
(Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard), dated 4 April 2004; Statement of
Events [by Applicant]; Headquarters, 54th Field Artillery Brigade, Virginia
Beach, Virginia, memorandum, dated 31 March 2004, subject:  Request for
Discharge - [Applicant's Name], PV2, HHB, 54th FA, with enclosures; extract
of National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management),
Chapter 4 (Initial Active Duty for Training (IADT)/Initial Entry Training
(IET); Headquarters National Guard Bureau, Arlington, Virginia, memorandum,
dated
8 February 1999, subject:  All States (Log Number P99 - 0004) Enlisted
Separations, with enclosure of Chapter 8 (Enlisted Separations) of NGR
600-200; extract of Army Regulation 135-178 (Enlisted Administrative
Separations), Chapter 2 (Guidelines on Separation and Characterization),
dated 29 December 2000; and extract of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of
Medical Fitness), paragraph 8-23 (Separation and retirement examinations).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military service records show that she enlisted in the
ARNG on 9 June 2000, for a period of 8 years, in pay grade E-1 for MOS 31L
(Cable Systems Installer-Maintainer).

2.  The applicant's military service records contain a DD Form 1966-Series
(Military Processing - Armed Forces of the United States), dated 9 June
2000, which shows in Section II (Examination and Entrance Data Processing
Codes), Item 20 (Accession Data), section f (Pay Grade), the entry "E01."
This document also shows in Section III (Other Personal Data), Item 22
(Education), section b (Have you ever been enrolled in ROTC, Junior ROTC,
Sea Cadet Program or Civil Air Patrol?) that an "X" was placed in the "No"
column and that the applicant placed her initials next to this mark.


3.  The applicant's military service records contain an NGB Form 600-7-1-R-
E, dated 9 June 2000, which shows, in pertinent part, the applicant's
eligibility for an EB for enlisting in MOS 31L and that she would receive a
total bonus of $5,000.  This document also shows provisions concerning the
payment, suspension, termination, and recoupment of the bonus.  Section IV
(Suspension), in pertinent part, shows the applicant will be suspended from
bonus eligibility if she is flagged (i.e., the suspension of favorable
personnel actions per Army Regulation 600-8-2, Suspension of Favorable
Personnel Actions (Flags)), for an adverse action; however, this document
does not include failure to maintain body composition standards or APFT
failure.  Section V (Termination) of this document contains the conditions
for termination from bonus eligibility and provides, in pertinent part,
that the applicant will be terminated from bonus eligibility, without
recoupment, if she does not become qualified in and awarded as a primary
MOS the MOS required for her position within 24 months of transfer due to
unit inactivation, reorganization, or relocation.  Termination will be
effective the date of transfer.  Section VIII (Authentication) of the
document shows that the applicant and the official enlisting the applicant
both affixed their signatures to the document.

4.  The applicant's military service records contain an NGB Form 600-7-5-R-
E, dated 9 June 2000.  This document shows, in pertinent part, the
applicant's eligibility for the SLRP; that she was enlisting in a valid
position vacancy and in the critical skill MOS 31L, which was authorized
for the SLRP; that the applicant had three existing loans in the amount of
$10,000; and that the total amount of repayment for qualifying loans will
not exceed $10,000 plus accrued interest.  Section IV (Suspension) of this
document contains the conditions for suspension of SLRP eligibility and
shows, in pertinent part, the applicant will be suspended from SLRP
eligibility if she is flagged (i.e., the suspension of favorable personnel
actions per Army Regulation 600-8-2) for an adverse action; however, this
document shows this does not include failure to maintain body fat
composition standards or APFT failure.  Section V (Termination) of this
document contains the conditions for termination of SLRP eligibility and
the applicant affixed her initials to Item 12 indicating she had read and
understood the contents of Section V.  Section VI (Authentication) of the
document shows that the applicant and the official enlisting the applicant
both affixed their signatures to the document.

5.  The applicant's military service records contain a copy of a DD Form
214, with an effective date of 15 November 2000.  This document shows, in
pertinent part, that the applicant completed 4 months and 10 days of active
service during this period, was released from active duty for training for
completion of required active duty, and that her character of service was
uncharacterized.  Item 11 (Primary Specialty) of the DD Form 214 contains
the entry "NONE/NOTHING
FOLLOWS" and Item 14 (Military Education) contains the entry "CABLE SYSTEMS
INSTALLER MAINTAINER, 7 WEEKS, NOV 2000//NOTHING FOLLOWS."

6.  The applicant provided a copy of Headquarters, 54th Field Artillery
Brigade, Virginia Beach, Virginia, memorandum, dated 31 March 2004,
subject:  Request for Discharge - [Applicant's Name], PV2, HHB, 54th FA,
with enclosures.  The Commander's Report for Separation Under Army
Regulation 135-178,
Chapter 13, provides information relevant to the commander's recommendation
for separation of the applicant and shows, in pertinent part, that he
recommended that the applicant's service be characterized as honorable.
This document also shows, in pertinent part, that in response to paragraph
3d (Medical/Mental examinations or evaluations:), "N/A" was entered on the
document and paragraph 3d(2) contains the entry "Report of Medical
Examination is not applicable."  In addition, in response to Paragraph 3f
(Medical or other data meriting consideration in the overall evaluation to
separate the Soldier and in the determination as to the appropriate
characterization of service.), "N/A" was entered on the document.

7.  The applicant's military service records contain a copy of an NGB Form
22, with an effective date of 17 May 2004.  This document shows, in
pertinent part, that the applicant completed 3 years, 11 months, and 9 days
of service during this period, was separated from the VA ARNG under the
provisions of NGR
600-200, Paragraph 4-4e (All soldiers must complete IADT within 2 years or
be discharged), and that her character of service was uncharacterized.
Item 13 (Primary Specialty) of the NGB Form 22 contains the entry "NONE"
and Item 12 (Military Education) contains the entry "CABLE SYSTEMS
INSTALLER MAINTAINER  7 WK NOV 00/."

8.  On 23 September 2005, in response to the applicant's DD Form 293
(Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces
of the United States), dated 23 March 2005, the Army Discharge Review Board
(ADRB) concluded that the applicant's discharge from the ARNG was proper,
but inequitable as to characterization.  The ADRB recommended that The
Adjutant General, State of Virginia, consider a change of the applicant's
discharge, with issuance of a new NGB Form 22 indicating characterization
of discharge to be honorable.  The ADRB also directed the Army Review Board
Agency (ARBA) Support Division, St. Louis, Missouri, ensure that the
applicant's discharge from the Reserve of the Army reflects her
characterization of service as honorable.


9.  On 16 February 2006, in response to the ADRB's recommendation, the
Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Office of the Adjutant General of
Virginia, notified the NGB, Personnel Division, and the applicant that it
had determined that a new NGB Form 22 will not be issued to the applicant
as her discharge was processed in accordance with NGR 600-200, paragraph 4-
4e, and that the original findings of The Adjutant General of Virginia will
remain in effect.

10.  In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained
from the Chief, Personnel Division, National Guard Bureau, Arlington,
Virginia, dated
16 June 2006.  The advisory opinion summarizes the terms of the applicant's
enlistment in the VA ARNG, the applicant's contentions, and addresses her
requests and arguments.  The advisory opinion states the applicant's
Military Training Certificate shows that she successfully completed 2 years
of instruction in the Army JROTC on 12 June 1998 and was recommended for
private (E-2); however, her enlistment contract erroneously shows that she
did not participate in JROTC.  The NGB advisory official confirms that the
applicant should have entered the ARNG in the grade of E-2 and should have
been promoted to the grade of PFC/E-3 upon completion of BCT and AIT.

11.  The NGB advisory official states that the advisory opinion was
coordinated with the Office of the ARNG Chief Surgeon, which non-concurred
with the opinion with respect to the issue regarding the applicant's APFT.
That office offered that the applicant was injured on or about October 2000
(sic), she was issued a temporary profile, and a request for line of duty
determination was initiated.  On 14 November 2000, the applicant was
counseled and signed a
DA Form 4856 where she acknowledged that to graduate AIT and be awarded an
MOS she had to take and pass an APFT within 24 months.

12.  The Office of the ARNG Chief Surgeon adds that medical diagnosis and
care was provided by WRAMC in April and May 2001, the applicant was issued
a temporary physical profile which expired on 5 July 2001, and the LOD was
approved on 15 November 2001.  The Office of the ARNG Chief Surgeon
official notes that upon expiration of the temporary physical profile, the
applicant could have taken a diagnostic APFT and, upon recovery, a record
APFT; however, there is no evidence to support any action with respect to
an APFT between
6 July 2001 and 12 May 2002.  This official adds that the temporary
physical profile the applicant received on 13 May 2002 outlines APFT events
the applicant was able to perform and she could have taken the APFT with
the newly issued profile.  However, there is no additional medical evidence
of record until January 2004, at which time a DA Form 7349-R (Initial
Medical Review - Annual Medical
Certificate) and DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) were completed that
indicate a back injury, issuance of a permanent physical profile, and
authorization of an alternate APFT.

13.  The Office of the ARNG Chief Surgeon notes that the applicant then
completed and passed the APFT on 4 April 2004.  The advisory official
offers that there is no medical evidence of record to substantiate why the
applicant did not take a record APFT anytime between 13 May 2002 and
January 2004 for completion of her requirements for graduation from AIT and
MOS qualification.  However, the Office of the ARNG Chief Surgeon offered
no advisory opinion regarding the medical review board process (e.g.,
Medical Duty Review Board (MDRB), MEB or PEB) concerning the applicant with
respect to her service in the ARNG and the administrative separation
process.

14. The NGB, Personnel Policy advisory official concludes that regulatory
guidance supports the applicant's contention that she was treated unfairly
by the VA ARNG during her service.  The NGB advisory opinion recommends
that the applicant's enlistment contract be corrected to show participation
in JROTC; the applicant's pay status be changed from E-2 to E-3 and that
she receive retroactive payment beginning with her enlistment date of 9
June 2000; the applicant's $5,000 EB be paid in accordance with NGB Form
600-7-1-R-E; her student loans be repaid in accordance with NGB Form 600-7-
5-R-E; and that the applicant be referred to a medical review board to
determine her service-connected back injury rating in accordance with Army
Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or
Separation).

15.  On 19 June 2006, a copy of the advisory opinion was furnished to the
applicant in order for her to have the opportunity to reply to its
contents.  On
25 June 2006, the applicant indicated that she concurred with the advisory
opinion rendered in her case.

16.  The ARNG Enlistment Program, paragraph 2-99, states that authority to
act on erroneous enlistment document entries is delegated to the Chief,
NGB, Personnel Policy and Readiness Division.  In accordance with Table 2-2
of the regulatory guidance, the grade of E-2 is authorized for non-Prior
Service (NPS) applicants with at least one year of JROTC.

17.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment)
prescribes eligibility criteria governing the enlistment of persons, with
or without prior service, into the Regular Army (RA) and Army Reserve (AR).
 Paragraph
2-19 provides, in pertinent part, that the applicant must provide
documentation to support enlistment in the higher pay grade.  Guidance
counselors will verify required documents to justify the higher pay grade
the applicant is enlisting at.
A guidance counselor, education specialist, operations NCO, first sergeant,
commissioned officer, or equivalent contracted personnel assigned to the
U.S. Army Recruiting Command must verify documents.  Verification must be
annotated referencing authority for grade in the Remarks section of the
DD Form 1966.

18.  Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 8-7 (Correction of Enlistment
Grade) states that any correction of enlistment grade, after enlistment
documents have been executed, is to be accomplished by promotion or
reduction action, whichever applies.  It also provides that enlistment
documents will not be altered to reflect the different grade and instructs
compliance with appropriate provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-19
(Enlisted Promotions and Reductions).  Requests for assistance in
establishing an individual's eligibility for a different grade based on
enlistment contract and supporting documents must include copies of
substantiating documents or statements.  The Soldier will be advised of the
right to apply to the ABCMR, if required.  The ABCMR, acting for the
Secretary of the Army (10 USC 1552), is the authority for correcting
(backdating) the effective date when a conflict exists.  Army Regulation
600-8-19 provides procedures for retroactive effective date, as well as
procedures for receipt of back pay.

19.  National Guard Regulation 600-200, Chapter 4 (IADT/IET), paragraph 4-4
(Required entry period), provides, in pertinent part, that delays in IADT
beyond 180 or 270 days may be authorized for Soldiers who incur an injury
or disease.  This provision also states that delays beyond 180 or 270 days
require approval of The Adjutant General.

20.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative
Separations), Glossary of Terms, defines "Entry-Level Status" for ARNG and
U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Soldiers, and states that entry-level status
begins upon enlistment in the ARNG or USAR.  For Soldiers ordered to IADT
for one continuous period, it terminates 180 days after beginning training.
 For Soldiers ordered to IADT for the split or alternate training option,
it terminates 90 days after beginning Phase II (AIT).  Soldiers completing
Phase I (BCT) remain in entry-level status until 90 days after beginning
Phase II (AIT).

21.  Paragraph 3-9 (Uncharacterized separations) of Army Regulation 635-
200, provides for entry-level status separation and states, in pertinent
part, that separation will be described as entry-level with service
uncharacterized if

processing is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status, except
when
(1) characterization under other than honorable conditions is authorized
under the reason for separation and is warranted by the circumstances of
the case;
(2) Headquarters, Department of the Army, on a case-by-case basis,
determines that characterization of service as honorable is clearly
warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving personal
conduct and performance of duty. This characterization is authorized when
the Soldier is separated by reason of selected changes in service
obligation, convenience of the Government, and Secretarial plenary
authority; or (3) the Soldier has less than 181 days of continuous active
military service, has completed IET, has been awarded an MOS, and has
reported for duty at a follow-on unit of assignment.

22.  Paragraph 3-7 (Types of administrative discharges/character of
service) of Army Regulation 635-200, provides, in pertinent part, that an
honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable
characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service
generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of
duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other
characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  When a Soldier is
discharged before expiration of term of service for a reason for which an
honorable discharge is discretionary, an honorable discharge may be
furnished when disqualifying entries in the Soldier's military record are
outweighed by subsequent honest and faithful service over a greater period
of time during the current term of service.  It is a pattern of behavior
and not the isolated incident that should be considered the governing
factor in determination of character of service.

23.  Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 8-23b, states, in pertinent part,
that Soldiers separating from the Army will receive a separation medical
examination if the Soldier requests it.  Paragraph 8-23e of this Army
Regulation also states that Soldiers who have indicated on a DD Form 2697
that they intend to seek Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability
compensation, or who have been referred to the Army Physical Disability
Evaluation System (PDES) for determination of fitness, will be given a
standard VA compensation and pension physical in addition to any other
examinations required by National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted
Personnel Management), Army Regulation 40-400 (Patient Administration), or
Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or
Separation).

24.  Army Regulation 600-60 (Physical Performance Evaluation System), in
effect at the time of the applicant's discharge, implements and establishes
operating procedures for the Physical Performance Evaluation System (PPES).

The purpose of the PPES is to maintain the quality of the force by ensuring
that Soldiers are physically qualified to perform their Primary Military
Occupational Specialty (PMOS) or specialty code worldwide and under field
conditions.  The PPES is a program designed to evaluate Soldiers who have
been issued a permanent physical profile with a numerical designator of 3
or 4 under any physical profile serial code (numerical) (PULHES) factor of
the physical profile (hereafter referred to as a permanent 3 or 4 profile)
to determine if they have the physical ability to satisfactorily perform
their PMOS (enlisted and warrant officers) or branch or specialty code
duties (officers) worldwide and in a field environment. The PPES
establishes the Military Occupational Specialty Mandatory Retention Board
(MMRB) as an administrative screening board to make this determination.
This screening system ensures continuity of effort among commanders,
doctors, personnel managers, and the PDES.  It provides the MMRB convening
authority with increased flexibility to determine a Soldier's
deployability, reclassification potential, or referral into the PDES.
Paragraph 2-2 (Required referral to MMRB) states, in pertinent part, that
Soldiers must be referred to a MMRB when issued a permanent profile with a
numerical designator of 3 or 4 in one of the profile factors, unless direct
referral to PEB is required.

25.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, the law which provides for the
Board, states that “The Secretary may pay, from applicable current
appropriations, a claim for the loss of pay, allowances, compensation,
emoluments, or other pecuniary benefits, or the repayment of a fine or
forfeiture, if, as a result of correcting a record under this section, the
amount is found to be due the claimant on account of his or another’s
service in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps or Coast Guard, as the
case may be.”

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends, in effect, that her enlistment contract should
be corrected to show that she participated in the JROTC program; that she
enlisted in the grade of E-2, was advanced to the grade of E-3, and payment
of all back pay as a result of these corrections; payment of an EB in the
amount of $5,000; repayment of loans under the SLRP; and referral to an MEB
and/or PEB for a disability rating determination due to a service-connected
back injury.

2.  The evidence of record shows that errors were made during the
preparation of the applicant's enlistment contract.  The evidence of record
shows that the applicant completed two years of JROTC prior to her
enlistment in the ARNG on 9 June 2000.  In addition, the applicant contends
that she provided a copy of her JROTC certificate to the recruiter.
Nevertheless, an erroneous entry was made
in Item 22b of the applicant's DD Form 1966/2 indicating that she had never
been enrolled in JROTC.  Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the applicant
is entitled to correction of her records to show that she had completed two
years of JROTC.

3.  The evidence of record shows that based on the applicant's completion
of two years of JROTC prior to her enlistment in the ARNG on 9 June 2000,
she was authorized to enlist in the ARNG in pay grade E-2.  However, due to
an administrative error that was made in the preparation of her enlistment
documents, an entry was made in Item 20f of her of her DD Form 1966/2 and
in Item 8, Section B (Agreements) of her DD Form 4/1 indicating a beginning
pay grade of E-1.  Therefore, the applicant is entitled to correction of
her records to show that she enlisted in the ARNG on 9 June 2000 in the
grade of E-2.  In addition, the applicant is entitled to all pay and
allowances due as a result of this correction.

4.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was eligible for
advancement to the grade of E-3 upon completion of BCT and AIT.  The
evidence of record also shows that one of the requirements for completion
of the applicant's AIT was passing the APFT.  The evidence of record
further shows that the applicant completed the course for MOS 31L on 8
November 2000, but was ineligible for advancement to the grade of E-3 until
she passed the APFT on 4 April 2004.  The evidence of record further shows
that, for Solders who incur an injury or disease, delays in IADT (i.e., MOS
qualification) beyond 180 or 270 days may be approved by The Adjutant
General of the State ARNG.  The Chief, Personnel Division, National Guard
Bureau, recommends approval, as the applicant was treated unfairly, in this
instance, during her service in the VA ARNG.  Therefore,
the applicant's records should be corrected to show that she was promoted
to the grade of rank of PFC/E-3, effective and with a date of rank of 4
April 2004.  In addition, the applicant is entitled to all pay and
allowances due as a result of this correction.

5.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant completed the Cable
Systems Installer Maintainer (MOS 31L) course on 8 November 2000, but she
was unfit to take the APFT at that time and, therefore, was not MOS
qualified.  However, the evidence of record also shows that the applicant
remained eligible for her EB, notwithstanding a suspension of favorable
personnel action that may have been imposed under the provisions of Army
Regulation 600-8-2 for being enrolled in the AWCP for failure to maintain
body fat composition standards or APFT failure.  With respect to the
applicant's entitlement to the EB, the evidence of record shows, in
pertinent part, that the applicant will receive one-half of the EB (less
taxes) upon award of the MOS for which she enlisted; the remaining
one-half of the EB (less taxes) upon satisfactory completion of the fourth
anniversary of her enlistment; and upon all requirements having been met
and entitlement verified and certified by the proper authority.  This Board
notes that the applicant attained MOS qualification on 4 April 2004, was
qualified for award of MOS 31L at that time, and that the applicant was
discharged on 17 May 2004, without the benefit of a medical evaluation or
medical examination.  Consequently, despite the fact that the applicant's
discharge occurred 21 days short of the fourth anniversary of her
enlistment, this Board concludes that all requirements for the EB have been
met and certifies the applicant's entitlement to the EB.  Therefore, the
applicant is entitled to payment of the entire EB.

6.  The evidence of record also shows that the applicant remained eligible
for the SLRP, notwithstanding a suspension of favorable personnel action
that may have been imposed under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-2
for being enrolled in the AWCP for failure to maintain body fat composition
standards or APFT failure.  With respect to the applicant's entitlement to
payments under the SLRP, the evidence of record shows, in pertinent part,
that the portion that may be repaid annually on any qualifying loan(s) will
not exceed 15 percent (not to exceed $1,500 per year) of the total of all
loans or $500, whichever is greater plus accrued interest.  In addition,
payment will be processed on the anniversary date of the applicant's
enlistment for each satisfactory year of service.  Again, this Board notes
that the applicant was discharged on 17 May 2004, without the benefit of a
medical evaluation or medical examination.  Consequently, despite the fact
that the applicant's discharge occurred 21 days short of the fourth
anniversary of her enlistment, this Board concludes that all requirements
for the SLRP have been met and certifies the applicant's entitlement to the
SLRP through the fourth anniversary of her enlistment.  Therefore, the
applicant is entitled to the payment of $6,000 under the SLRP plus accrued
interest.

7.  In doing so, the applicant's military records should be corrected to
show her NGR 600-7-5-R-E was amended to include the sentence “Based on an
official correction of the military record by the Army Board for Correction
of Military Records due to government officials failing to follow its own
regulations during the applicant's administrative separation processing,
the Army Board for Correction of Military Records may pay the loan, at its
sole discretion, in accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552."
This would allow the Board to invoke that provision and pay the applicant
the amount the lending institution(s) would have been paid for her student
loans had she continued to serve through to the fourth anniversary of the
term of her enlistment in the Army National Guard.

8.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant's commander counseled
the applicant on 11 January 2004 regarding his intent to initiate discharge
proceedings on her for not being MOS qualified based on her inability to
pass the APFT, despite her profile.  The evidence of record also shows that
medical examinations or evaluations were not included as part of the
applicant's separation processing that was initiated on 15 January 2004.
Moreover, the evidence of record shows the applicant was issued a "P3"
permanent profile on 30 January 2004.  Nonetheless, there is no evidence in
the available records to show that the applicant was referred to an MMRB,
as required by Army regulatory requirements, to determine if she had the
physical ability to satisfactorily perform her PMOS.  In view of the
foregoing, it is clear that the applicant was not afforded the required
medical review process prior to her discharge.  Therefore, this Board
concludes that ARNG officials erred in discharging the applicant without
benefit of the medical review process (e.g., MMRB, MDRB, or MEB/PEB), to
which she was entitled.

9.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant completed a total of 3
years, 11 months, and 9 days of military service during the period of
service in question and that her character of service was uncharacterized.
However, the evidence of record also shows that the applicant attained MOS
qualification prior to her discharge and there is no record of adverse
information or disciplinary action taken against the applicant during this
period of service.  Therefore, in this case, this Board concludes that
characterization of the applicant's service as honorable is clearly
warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving her military
service, personal conduct, and performance of duty.

BOARD VOTE:

___LDS__  ___PHM_  ___DWS_  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends
that The Adjutant
General of the State of Virginia correct the applicant's records and
directs that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned
be corrected by showing:

     a.  completion of two years of JROTC prior to her enlistment in the VA
ARNG on 9 June 2000;

     b.  enlistment in the VA ARNG, on 9 June 2000, in pay grade E-2;

     c.  advancement to the rank of private first class/pay grade E-3,
effective and with a date of rank of 4 April 2004;

     d.  eligibility for payment of the entire $5,000 enlistment bonus;

     e.  eligibility for repayment of student loans through the fourth
anniversary of the term of her enlistment (i.e., $6,000 plus accrued
interest) under the Student Loan Repayment Program by amending the
applicant's NGR
600-7-5-R-E to include the sentence, “Based on an official correction of
the military record by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records
due to government officials failing to follow its own regulations during
the applicant's administrative separation processing, the Army Board for
Correction of Military Records may pay the loan, at its sole discretion, in
accordance with Title 10,
U.S. Code, section 1552."; and

     f.  an honorable characterization of service pertaining to the
applicant's discharge covering the period of service from 9 June 2000
through 17 May 2004.

2.  As a result of the foregoing corrections, the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service (DFAS) shall be notified of the Board's determination
and:

     a.  remit payment to the applicant of all back pay (i.e., pay and
allowances, less any withholdings and/or deductions) due as a result of
correction in her pay grade from E-1 to pay grade E-2, effective with her
enlistment in the VA ARNG on 9 June 2000 through 3 April 2004;

     b.  remit payment to the applicant of all back pay (i.e., pay and
allowances, less any withholdings and/or deductions) due as a result of
correction in her pay grade from E-2 to pay grade E-3, effective 4 April
2004 through 17 May 2004;

     c.  remit payment to the applicant the entire amount of the
applicant's $5,000 enlistment bonus (less taxes); and

     d.  remit payment to the applicant four anniversary payments of $1,500
each, the total amount not to exceed $6,000 plus accrued interest, to which
she is entitled as a result of this correction.  If required, the applicant
will submit the appropriate evidence (promissory notes, etc.) to the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

3.  The Board also directs that the Director, Army Reserve Medical
Directorate, U.S. Army Human Resource Command, St. Louis, Missouri, ensure
the applicant is notified, referred, and issued Invitational Travel Orders
to participate, as appropriate, in a medical review board (e.g., MMRB,
MDRB, and/or MEB/PEB) process for the purpose of determining if she has the
physical ability to satisfactorily perform in her primary MOS worldwide and
in a field environment, or should be processed for disability rating
determination due to a service-connected back injury.

4.  The Board also recommends that, if found fit for enlistment, the
appropriate U.S Army Reserve Career Management Branch, U.S. Army Human
Resources Command, St. Louis, Missouri, contact the applicant with respect
to this Record of Proceedings and discuss the applicant's current service
and eligibility for assignment in the U.S. Army Reserve Individual Ready
Reserve.




                                  _____Linda D. Simmons_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050015207                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061205                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20040517                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |NGR 600-200, Chapter 4, Paragraph 4e    |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Failure to Complete Active Duty for     |
|                        |Training                                |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |103.0100.0000                           |
|2.                      |112.0200.0000                           |
|3.                      |112.1100.0000                           |
|4.                      |112.1200.0000                           |
|5.                      |122.0100.0000                           |
|6.                      |145.0600.0000                           |


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