RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:    .


      BOARD DATE:         11 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060006745


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. David R. Gallagher            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Roland S. Venable             |     |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, payment of the Selective
Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) guaranteed in his 23 June 2005 Enlistment Contract
(DD Form 4).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was authorized a prior service
SRB by his recruiter, which was guaranteed by the recruiting guidance
counselor at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS), Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, who gave him a 2A bonus in connection with his enlistment
in military occupational specialty (MOS) 88M (Motor Transport Operator).

3.  The applicant provides his enlistment contract and associated documents
in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows that he initially enlisted in the Regular
Army and entered active duty on 11 October 1994.  He served on active duty
until 13 April 2000, at which time he was honorably released from active
duty in the rank of specialist (SPC) after completing a 5 years, 6 months,
and 3 days of active military service.  His record confirms that at the
time of his separation, he held the MOS 88M and had served in that MOS for
5 years and 1 month.

2.  On 23 June 2005, the applicant reenlisted for 3 years, and reentered
active duty in the rank of private first class (PFC).  A Statement of
Understanding containing a record of the contractual obligations,
guarantees, and annexes to the enlistment contract prepared on the
applicant during his reenlistment processing confirms he was reenlisting
for the following programs/options:  Program/Option 9B/18 (United States
Army Station/Unit/Area/Command Enlistment Program, Program/Option 9C/470
(United States Army Incentive Enlistment Program, Prior Service, SRB).  The
applicant and the recruiting guidance counselor authenticated this document
with their signatures on 23 June 2005.

3.  The Record of Military Processing (DD Form 1966) prepared on the
applicant upon his entry on active duty on 23 June 2005, confirms in
Section VI (Remarks) that the applicant was authorized an SRB with a 2A
multiplier based on his enlistment in MOS 88M.

4.  In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was
obtained from the Chief, Force Alignment Branch, Human Resources Command
(HRC), Alexandria, Virginia.  This official recommended the applicant's
request be denied.
5.  The HRC advisory opinion further indicates that the policy message in
effect at the time of the applicant's enlistment required that a broken
service prior service Soldier would reenter active duty in the pay grades E-
4 through E-6, depending on qualifications and vacancies.  He further
stated that approval of the applicant's request would establish a precedent
that would permit other Soldier's to submit similar requests that are not
budgeted.

6.  On 7 July 2006, the applicant was provided a copy of the HRC advisory
opinion in order to have the opportunity to comment on, or rebut its
contents.  To date, he has failed to respond.

7.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment
Program) prescribes eligibility criteria governing the enlistment of
persons, with or without prior service (PS), into the Regular Army (RA) and
the USAR.  Chapter 6, section II contains guidance on the Guidance
Counselor Processing Phase.  It states, in pertinent part, that Guidance
Counselors will use the supporting automated systems and updated regulatory
material applicable to MOS and available options to counsel all applicants
on their enlistment options.  It further states that Guidance Counselors
will counsel applicants who fail to meet specific qualifications for
options for which they applied and advise them of other available options.
Paragraph 9-9 regulation contains guidance on Enlistment Program 9C
(Enlistment Bonus, Army College Fund, Loan Repayment Program).  It states,
in pertinent part, that this program is available to qualified applicants
when authorized by Headquarters, Department of the Army (DA) Enlistment
Incentive Messages, and that available incentives will be offered using the
Deputy Chief of Staff, GI Request system.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Notwithstanding the HRC recommendation, given the reenlistment
incentive in question is a matter of policy, and not law, it is clearly the
proper and just thing to do to honor the contractual agreement entered into
by the Army and the applicant in this case.

2.  By regulation, SRB incentives guaranteed in an enlistment contract are
authorized by policy messages released by the DA G-1, and available
incentives are available to recruiting personnel through the automated G-1
Request system. Guidance counselors are required to use supporting
automated systems, which includes the G-1 Request system, to counsel all
applicants on their enlistment options; to counsel applicants who fail to
meet specific qualifications for options for which they applied; and to
advise them of other available options.

3.  The evidence of record includes the applicant's reenlistment contract
of
23 June 2005, which contains a Statement of Understanding that confirms he
was guaranteed the Enlistment Program/Option 9C/470, which was a broken
service prior service SRB.  There is also a DD Form 1966 on file that
verifies he was authorized an SRB with a 2A multiplier in conjunction with
this reenlistment.  Both these enlistment contract documents were
authenticated by the guidance counselor on 23 June 2005, the date the
applicant reenlisted and reentered active duty.  Thus, it would be
appropriate to honor the commitment made to the applicant in his enlistment
contract, and to provide him the SRB with 2A multiplier he was promised as
an exception to policy.  Payment of this incentive should be made by the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) in the appropriate amount and
manner.

BOARD VOTE:

___PHM_  __DRG__  __RSV__  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 is entitled to the SRB with 2A multiplier promised in his
enlistment contract of 23 June 2005; and that the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service pay this incentive in the appropriate amount and manner
based on the terms of the original enlistment contract as an exception to
policy.




                                  ____Patrick H. McGann______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060006745                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/10/11                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |128.0500                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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