Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | AR20050018310C070206
Original file (AR20050018310C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Approved



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:                 07 March 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:         AR20050018310


      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. James Anderholm               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas Reichler               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Scott Faught                  |     |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 he be paid a broken service selective
reenlistment bonus (BSSRB).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was promised a BSSRB by his
recruiter if he enlisted into the Regular Army in military occupational
specialty (MOS) 96B.  However he was denied the bonus after he enlisted.
He goes on to state that he is married with two children and he enlisted in
part, based on the promise of a BSSRB.  He goes on to state that he left
his civilian job when he joined the Army and moved his family 1,000 miles,
only to find out that his contract would not be honored.  He continues by
stating that he was offered the option of requesting a breach of contract
and getting out of the Army; however, he would have no job or home to
return to if he did so.  He continues by stating that leaving the Army at
this point would not be fair and would put him at a serious disadvantage.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his enlistment contract and two
previous cases that are similar to his which have been previously approved
by the Board.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s records, though somewhat incomplete, show that he
enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 June 1994 and served on active duty
until he was honorably discharged in the pay grade of E-6 on 4 September
2001, due to the expiration of his term of service (ETS).  He had served 7
years, 2 months and 19 days of total active service and was serving in the
MOS of 96B (intelligence analyst) at the time of his discharge.

2.  He enlisted in the Florida Army National Guard (FLARNG) on 17 July 2002
and was ordered to active duty in support of Operations Noble Eagle and
Enduring Freedom on 20 November 2002.  He served on active duty until he
was honorably released from active duty on 16 November 2003 and was
returned to his unit.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 July
2004 and on 30 November 2004, he was honorably discharged from the FLARNG
for the purpose of enlisting in the Regular Army.

3.  On 1 December 2004, he enlisted in the Regular Army in Miami, Florida,
in the pay grade of E-7 for a period of 3 years, assignment to Fort
Campbell, Kentucky, and a prior service selective reenlistment bonus
(option 470)


4.  On 5 December 2005, the Human Resources Command – Alexandria (HRC –
Alex) denied the applicant’s request for payment of a BSSRB.  Officials at
that agency opined that the applicant had been improperly advised by his
recruiter and was ineligible to receive the BSSRB because his most recent
discharge from active duty was from the FLARNG and not the Regular Army.
The applicant was also advised that he could request separation for an
unfulfilled enlistment contract.

5.  Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment
Program, provides that prior service applicants last separated from an
active duty component and who were separated 91 days to 4 years earlier and
hold an MOS with appropriate skill level authorized a BSSRB based on
current Military Personnel (MILPER) Message published by Human Resources
Command at time of enlistment are eligible for a BSSRB.  Applicants must
enlist within 48 months of separation.  Prior service applicants who were
last separated from a Reserve Component are not authorized a BSSRB.
Soldiers will be paid the BSSRB no earlier than 60 days after reentry or 30
days after arriving at the first duty station.

6.  That regulation also provides that the recruiter/guidance counselor
must indicate in the remarks section of the DD Form 1966, the BSSRB level
authorized, the authority (DA Message Number), Confirmation from United
States Army Recruiting Command (indicate name/date and level authorized)
and pay grade authorized.

7.  Army Regulation 601-210 provides the criteria, policies and procedures
for enlistment into the Regular Army.  It states, in pertinent part, that
every effort will be made to honor all promises made at time of enlistment.
 When it has been determined that a defective enlistment exists in which a
soldier was eligible to enlist but was not eligible for the options for
which enlisted and the enlistment involved misrepresentation by recruiting
personnel, upon which the soldier reasonably relied and thereby was induced
to enlist or was the result of an administrative oversight by recruiting
personnel in failing to detect that the soldier did not meet the
requirements and the soldier did not knowingly contribute to the defective
enlistment, the soldier may be separated from the service for an
unfulfilled or defective enlistment agreement unless they choose to waive
the option in lieu of separation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Notwithstanding the denial of the applicant’s request by the HRC –
Alex, the Board finds, as did the HRC, that the applicant enlisted with the
understanding that he would receive a BSSRB for enlisting in MOS 96B and
his enlistment paperwork corroborates his claim.

2.  While the applicant clearly did not then and does not now meet the
established regulatory criteria for the BSSRB, the Board finds that the
Department should honor the promises made to the applicant by awarding him
the BSSRB as an exception to policy.

3.  Accordingly, he should be paid the BSSRB at the minimum rate necessary
to qualify for payment of the BSSRB under the criteria in effect at the
time, without regard to his prior service status (last served in Reserve
Component).

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected
as recommended below.

BOARD VOTE:

___JA___  ___TR __  ___SF___  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 the individual concerned is authorized payment of a BSSRB for
his enlistment of 1 December 2004, as an exception to policy, under the
minimum criteria necessary to qualify for payment.




                                  _____James Anderholm_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050018310                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060307                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A AC Soldier on AD                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A AC Soldier on AD                    |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A AC Soldier on AD                    |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |N/A AC Soldier on AD                    |
|BOARD DECISION          |(GRANT)                                 |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |226/BRK ENL CONT                        |
|1.112.0400              |                                        |
|2.128.0000              |283/BSSRB                               |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080230C070215

    Original file (2002080230C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In so doing, they stated that the applicant’s MOS (98C) did not qualify for a BSSRB and offered that he could request separation based on an unfulfilled enlistment contract. PERSCOM again stated that the applicant could request separation based on an unfulfilled enlistment contract. The applicant met his enlistment obligations in full and the Army should honor the promise made to the applicant in his enlistment contract by awarding him the BSSRB as an exception to policy.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076592C070215

    Original file (2002076592C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Member of Congress was further informed that the applicant could get out of the Army "based on an unfulfilled enlistment contract or he can choose to accept his enlistment without the BSSRB." In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) Retention Management Division, which opined that the applicant had been improperly informed that he would receive a BSSRB because he was not eligible and did not meet the criteria...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014819

    Original file (20080014819.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's records show he initially enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years on 8 July 1983. He subsequently completed a USAREC Form 1150-R-E (Statement of Understanding-Army Policy), indicating that his enlistment was in the grade of E-4 and that he enlisted for the broken service selective reenlistment bonus (BSSRB) incentive in accordance with Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) Military Personnel Message 01-199, dated 5 July 2001 for MOS 96B for 3 years. The...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004551C070206

    Original file (20050004551C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Allen L. Raub | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The opinion stated the applicant reenlisted as an E-4 for 3 years in MOS 11B on 1 February 2005. When the applicant enlisted in the DEP on 1 December 2004, his recruiter told him he qualified for the BSSRB and included that enlistment option on the applicant's contract.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120014831

    Original file (20120014831.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). He provides: * DA Forms 3286 (Statement for Enlistment – U.S. Army Enlistment Program), dated 29 March 2006 and 7 February 2008 * DA Form 3340-R (Request for Reenlistment or Extension in the RA) * DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document – Armed Forces of the United States), dated 7 February 2008 * DA Form 4789 (Statement of Entitlement to Selective Reenlistment Bonus) * Email, dated 15 and 16...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | AR20050015574C070206

    Original file (AR20050015574C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    By regulation, Army Guidance Counselors are required to verify that a member enlisting for the LRP has qualifying loans and to advise those members if any loan is not eligible for repayment. In doing so, the applicant’s military records may be corrected to show his DA Form 3286-66 was amended to include the sentence “If a student loan is accepted by the official processing you for enlistment as payable under the LRP and the government fails to verify that the student loan accepted actually...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | AR20060006043C070205

    Original file (AR20060006043C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    By regulation, Army Guidance Counselors are required to verify that a member enlisting for the LRP has qualifying loans and to advise those members if any loan is not eligible for repayment. In doing so, the applicant’s military records may be corrected to show on page 8 of his contract (Statement for Enlistment) was amended to include the sentence “If a student loan is accepted by the official processing you for enlistment as payable under the LRP and the government fails to verify that...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017668

    Original file (20100017668.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The opinion stated: * The applicant’s enlistment contract revealed he enlisted in the RA on 7 March 2002 for MOS 11B and a $4,000.00 bonus * He was separated from the Army and reentered on 14 September 2006 * The BSSRB was listed on his reentry contract in the amount of $4,000.00 * He was never paid either bonus 4. The evidence of record shows he enlisted in the RA on 7 March 2002 for a $4,000.00 cash bonus in MOS 11X. His military pay records at DFAS confirm he has not received either his...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050009124C070206

    Original file (20050009124C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests, in effect, that he receive the Army College Fund (ACF) and Enlistment Bonus (EB) entitlements he was guaranteed in his Enlistment Contract (DD Form 4). The evidence of record confirms that the applicant enlisted for a $3,000.00 Hi-Grad EB that was authorized in his enlistment contract. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing that he remains entitled to the $3,000 Hi-Grad enlistment...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002060264C070402

    Original file (2002060264C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. While the Board cannot determine why the delay in establishing eligibility occurred, the applicant acknowledged that it was his responsibility to keep his loan current until the first payment was made. However, such delays in processing do not constitute an unfulfilled contract.