RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  12 APRIL 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060012305 


	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.

	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 his 1 year Critical Skills Retention Bonus (CSRB), dated 20 December 2005, be treated as an extension to his original 3 year CSRB contract that was approved on 20 November 2002. 

2.  The applicant states that he applied for a 1 year extension to his current         3 year contract which would have entitled him to a $20,000.00 bonus, but instead he received $8,000.00.  The applicant recalls that 6 months prior to the completion of his 3 year CSRB contract, the Army came out with a new incentive to the CSRB in 2004.  After researching this new incentive with the battalion retention Noncommissioned Officer (NCO), he was told that the two incentives were not going to be combined and if the applicant wanted to extend his enlistment, he would have to wait until April 2006, his CSRB anniversary month.  The applicant says that he talked to the reenlistment NCO on several occasions concerning the CSRB prior to his deployment to Afghanistan.

3.  The applicant maintains that in August 2005, while deployed to Afghanistan, he sought reenlistment advice and was told to wait until he returned to Fort Bragg since he was scheduled to depart within two weeks.  However, the applicant did not return to Fort Bragg until the end of October 2005, after the expiration of his CSRB contract.  The applicant states that he was informed by the retention sergeant major that he (applicant) needed to renegotiate his 3 year contract and extend by 1 year making his contract 4 years to qualify for the entire $50,000.00. Enlisting for 1 year entitled the applicant to $8,000.00 vice extending in which he would have been entitled to $20,000.00; thus the applicant lost $12,000.00.

4.  The applicant provides his self-authored statement, two supporting statements and copies of his CRSB applications.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board show that the applicant enlisted in the United States Army on 27 April 1982 and through a series of reenlistments is currently serving in the military in the grade of E-7.  His military occupational specialty (MOS) is listed as 18F (Special Forces Assistant Operations and Intelligence Sergeant).




2.  A memorandum dated 20 November 2002 shows that the applicant’s request to receive CSRB in MOS 18F was approved.  The memorandum stated that the applicant agreed to remain on active duty for 3 years entitling him to a lump sum amount equal to $30,000.00.  The applicant’s obligation was effective from           24 October 2002 to 23 October 2005.

3. A memorandum dated 21 November 2005 shows that the applicant requested CSRB in MOS 18B (Special Forces Weapons Sergeant) for a period of 1 year under the provisions of MILPER Message 05-050 Critical Skills Retention Bonus, dated 21 February 2005.  The applicant said he understood that "I accrue no, REPEAT no right to a CSRB solely by signing this application."  Upon approval of his application the Army would pay him, subject to availability of funds, a lump sum amount under the provisions of the referenced message.  

4.  The applicant’s request was approved on 20 December 2005.  The memorandum stated that the applicant has agreed to remain on active duty for    1 year entitling him to a lump sum amount equal to $8,000.00.  The applicant’s obligation was effective from 21 November 2005 to 20 November 2006. 

5.  The applicant provided the staff action summary sheet that solicited the commanding general’s support of his application to the Board.  The summary sheet explained that “due to subsequent changes to the CSRB Program, eligible Soldiers were authorized to add 1 or more years to their original CSRB obligation and be paid the new amount for the additional obligation.”  However, because the applicant request for an additional 1 year CSRB is dated 21 November 2005, after the end of his previous CSRB obligation, it was treated as a new request and not an extension of the original period. 

6.  The applicant provided a supporting statement from the Commander, Headquarters, United States Army, Special Forces Command (Airborne), Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  The commander stated that he strongly recommended approval of the applicant’s CSRB dated 20 December 2005 to be changed to authorize an additional payment of $12,000.00.  The commander explained that the applicant’s request for an additional year of CSRB was dated 21 November 2005, after his deployment in support of Operation Enduring Freedom from       28 June 2005 through 2 November 2005.  The applicant was paid $8,000.00 instead of the $20,000.00 he expected.  The commander said that in light of the applicant’s deployment and the fact that no policy guidance was published pertaining to extending CSRB obligations, he requesed the applicant be paid the $20,000.00 he expected to receive for agreeing to serve a total of 4 years under the CSRB Program.

7.  The applicant’s records show that he was deployed to Afghanistan from       28 June 2005 to 2 November 2005. 

8.  On 10 May 2006, the Director of Enlisted Personnel, Human Resources Command (HRC), disapproved the applicant’s request for an additional payment of $12,000.00 for CSRB Program.  The director stated that a legal review was completed by the HRC Judge Advocate General, and the Deputy Chief, Compensation and Entitlement Division, G1.  The legal review determined that where a contract expires and a new contract is executed one or more days after the first expiration, there is no ability to go back to the old contract.  The director stated that the applicant’s original 3 year CRSB contract was approved on 22 November 2002 and ended on 23 October 2005.  His request for an additional year of CSRB was dated 21 November 2005.  Therefore, he did not meet the criteria for extending his initial CSRB obligation which expired on 23 October 2005.

9.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Force Alignment Division, HRC.  The Chief Force Alignment Division reiterated the information contained in the disapproval memorandum from Director of Enlisted Personnel dated 10 May 2006.  The Chief Force Alignment Division recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request citing that he did not meet the legal criteria for extending his initial CSRB obligation which expired on 23 October 2005.

10.  On 23 October 2006, the applicant responded to the advisory opinion.  The applicant said he sought guidance from the retention sergeant major concerning the implementation of the new message on CSRB.  He maintains that no one knew exactly how the old and new guidance for the CSRB would be integrated.  He provided a supporting statement from the former retention sergeant major to substantiate his claim.

11.  The former retention sergeant major and current Chief, Retention Management Division, stated that his office published MILPER Message 04-356 immediately through their chain of command website.  He said one of the main highlights of the updated program was a significant increase in the monetary incentives offered to Special Forces, Career Management Field (CMF) 18 Noncommissioned Officers.  The sergeant major recalled that early in the second quarter, fiscal year 2005, his office contacted the Army G-1 Retention Office and Retention Management Division, HRC, for guidance on how their Soldiers who previously received CSRB could request a renegotiation of their current agreement.  He said no policy was forthcoming and, as of this date, no procedural guidance policy regarding this issue has been published.  
12.  On 5 April 2007, telephone clarification of the advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Force Alignment Division, HRC.  HRC verified that their denial of the applicant’s request was solely based on the fact that the request was dated   21 November 2005, and the applicant’s contract expired on 23 October 2005. HRC concluded “if the applicant’s request for CSRB had been dated 23 October 2005 or prior to, he would have been entitled to the entire $50,000.00.”

13.  MILPER Message 04-356, Critical Skills Retention Bonus, dated                 30 December 2004, announced additions to the CSRB Program as well as eligibility and processing procedures.  The message stated, in pertinent part, that CSRB is targeted to retirement eligible career Soldiers in specific MOS of CMF 18 in the rank of SSG to 1SG with between 19 to 25 years of active Federal service and who are fully eligible for reenlistment, other than retention control point.  Approval of CSRB term is authority to retain these Soldiers beyond RCP for rank.  Payment will be made in lump sum for each additional full year of 
obligated service.  Effective 1 January 2005 level of bonuses to be paid per year of obligated service are as follows:  $50,000.00 for 4 years; $30,000.00 for           3 years; $18,000.00 for 2 years, and $8,000.00 for 1 year.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It is reasonable to conclude that had the applicant, retention NCO, sergeant major, and his chain of command been fully aware of the policy and the guidelines concerning the "additions" to the CSRB Program, actions would have been taken to complete his CSRB packet in a timelier manner.  The fact that applicant was deployed during his window of opportunity June through November 2005 and his CSRB packet was subsequently processed within weeks after his return, clearly indicates that it was outside the applicant's control.  The delay in the clarification of the CSRB Program created an injustice for the applicant that he should not be held accountable for by denying him entitlement to the $12,000.00 difference in renegotiating his 3 year contract to 4 years vice a new   1 year contract that paid CSRB of $8,000.00.

2.  Additionally, HRC verified that their denial of the applicant’s request was based solely on the fact that his request for additional CSRB payment was dated less than 30 days after the expiration of his initial CSRB obligation.

3.  The applicant has answered the call of his country for more than 24 years now and deployed to the theater of operations in Support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Special Forces CMF, at a time when other Soldiers have elected to separate from the military.  Therefore, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice to correct the applicant's 20 December 2005 CSRB packet to show that it was approved on 20 October 2005 thereby extending his contract to 4 years and making him eligible for the entire $50,000.00 CSRB.


BOARD VOTE:

__CG ___  __MF ___  ___EM__  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 as follows:
a.  by showing that his 20 December 2005 CSRB packet was approved on 20 October 2005 for 1 year extending his initial 3 year contract to 4 years;

b.  by showing his obligation to remain on active duty is from his original date of 24 October 2002 to 23 October 2006; and

c.  by showing he is entitled to a lump sum amount of $50,000.00 for the   4 years of obligated service under CSRB Program in which $38,000.00 has already been paid and authorizing him an additional lump sum payment of $12,000.00.




_____Curtis Greenway_________
          CHAIRPERSON



INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060012305
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
220070412
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
GRANT 
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
112.00
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.