RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        12 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060006330


      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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Infante                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Gerald J. Purcell             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Karmin S. Jenkins             |     |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 military occupational specialty (MOS) 88M
(Heavy Vehicle Driver) be removed.

2.  The applicant states that she was awarded the MOS but never went to the
school.  She relates that she was assigned to a reserve unit that was
supposed to send her to school to become qualified in MOS 88M, but the unit
was deactivated before that ever happened.  She was mobilized in MOS 88M
but thinks that it could be dangerous for her and her fellow soldiers if
she mobilized again in an MOS in which she is not qualified.

3.  The applicant provides copies of a request for personnel action (DA
Form 4187); an email message, sent in December 2005; a May 2005
Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER); September 2004
Mobilization Orders Number A-09-409643R from Human Resources Command (HRC),
St Louis, Missouri and a modification thereto; a January 1998 NCOER; Total
Army Personnel Command [now Human Resources Command (HRC)], St Louis
promotion orders , dated 13 September 2001; and a classification data
printout.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant, then a United States Army Reserve (USAR) sergeant,
served in MOS 88M20 with 239th Transportation Company from 1997 through
1998.  In the January 1998 NCOER she received successful or better
evaluations from her rater.  Her senior rater marked her overall
performance in the second box and her overall potential in the top box.

2.  On 1 October 2001 she was promoted to staff sergeant with 92Y30 as her
primary MOS, 88M30 as secondary MOS, and 71L30 as an additional MOS.  The
orders noted that she had 30 days to decline the promotion and that
acceptance would subject her to worldwide reassignment to a commensurate
position.

3.  She was evaluated in the May 2005 NCOER for the previous 12-month
period of mobilization with 283rd Transportation Company (Medium Truck).
She served as a supply sergeant in MOS 92Y30.

4.  In a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) the applicant requested
reclassification.  On 31 March 2006, her unit commander noted that she had
not attended school in MOS 88M, that her duty MOS was 92Y30, and
recommended that her request be approved.  There is no available evidence
of any subsequent action.

5.  During the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained
from the HRC, St Louis.  The opinion pointed out that the applicant had
served successfully in MOS 88M for several months and that the governing
regulation Army Regulation 350-1 (Army Training and Leadership Development)
authorized on-the–job training as a source of MOS qualification.  It was
also pointed out that the applicant had accepted promotion to staff
sergeant with 88M30 as a secondary MOS.  The advisory opinion was forwarded
to the applicant for comment or rebuttal.  No response was received.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant may feel that she is not qualified in MOS 88M because she
has not been to a formal school.  Nevertheless, she was properly awarded
that MOS based upon on-the–job training and furthermore, she was promoted
in that area as a secondary MOS.  There is no basis for withdrawing this
secondary MOS simply because the applicant, contrary to her proven
performance, feels that she is not qualified because she has not completed
to a formal course.

2.  The above is in consonance with the advisory opinion from the HRC,
St. Louis.

BOARD VOTE:

__JI  ____  __KSJ___  __GJP__  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  Notwithstanding the staff DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS above, the Board
during their review was advised by the subject matter expert that because
Army Regulation (AR) 350-1 (Army Training and Leader Development)
authorizes on the job training (OJT), the Soldier can be awarded a military
occupational specialty (MOS) based on performing the duties and being rated
accordingly, as successful.  However, AR 350-1, paragraph 1-28b, states OJT
is authorized for “duty-positions” in the unit.  AR 350-1, paragraph 1-28a,
states that formal OJT is a closely managed program based on critical tasks
for the duty that is implemented by the unit commander.  AR 611-21
(Military Occupational Classification and Structure) requires formal
training before award of a MOS.

2.  Therefore, the Board recommends that the applicant’s request be granted
for the following reasons:  Award of an MOS based solely on utilization in
a position and a successful rating is not authorized.  Formal resident
training or formal OJT are the only means in which an MOS can be awarded.



                                  _         _John Infante___________
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060006330                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061012                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |.                                       |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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