Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015344
Original file (20060015344.txt) Auto-classification: Denied


RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  24 May 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060015344 


	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. Gerard W. Schwartz

Acting Director

Mr. G. E. Vandenberg

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann

Chairperson

Mr. Ronald J. Weaver

Member

Mr. David W. Tucker

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 she be shown to have enlisted in the rank and pay grade of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 and that her pay entry base date (PEBD) be corrected.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that there is no regulation mandating a reduction in rank or grade when a Soldier transfers from the United States Army Reserve (USAR) to the Regular Army (RA).  She was promoted to SSG and served for over two years before enlisting in the RA.  She also states that her PEBD is wrong.

3.  The applicant provides copy of her 8 June 2006 DD Form 4/1 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The records show the applicant enlisted in the USAR on 27 June 1997 with Initial Active Duty for Training (IADT) from 28 October 1997 through 13 February 1998.  At this point she was awarded the primary military occupational specialty (MOS) of 57E (Laundry and Bath Specialist).  (NOTE: the MOS 57E designation was converted to 92S in 2003).

2.  The applicant was promoted to sergeant (SGT) on 31 March 2000 and to SSG on 4 October 2003.

3.  The applicant completed training on 3 May 2004 and was awarded the MOS 68Q (Pharmacy Specialist).

4.  On 9 June 2006 the applicant enlisted in the RA for four years as a sergeant in pay grade E-5.  The DD Form 4 prepared at that time does not list her prior USAR service but indicates she elected to enlist with a priority MOS election.

5.  A DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) indicates the applicant completed the 97E (Human Intelligence Collector) course on 3 November 2006. 

6.  The iPERMS (Personnel Electronic Records Management System) records currently indicates the following:

	a.  a grade of sergeant and date of rank of 8 June 2006; 

	b.  a PEBD of 27 June 1997;
	
	c.  a last date of release from active duty of 20 April 2007;

	d.  a primary MOS of 68Q (Pharmacy Specialist); and

	e.  a secondary MOS of 92S (Shower/Laundry and Clothing Repair Specialist).

7.  The iPERMS does not contain supporting documentation to show any reenlistment on 20 April 2007 or promotion to SSG as indicated on her DA Form 1059.  

8.  In the development of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Human Resources Command, Chief, Force Alignment Division.  It was noted that the applicant's MOS 91Q was at 120 percent in the rank of SSG at the time the applicant enlisted.  The applicant refused assignment in her secondary MOS.  Per established policy she was administratively reduced and allowed to retrain into a priority MOS.  The fact that the applicant enlisted in the RA on 8 June 2006 in the lower pay grade shows she was aware of these factors.  No relief was recommended.

9.  The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for concurrence or rebuttal.  There is no indication the applicant responded to the advisory opinion.

10.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program) sets forth the eligibility criteria governing the enlistment of persons, with or without prior service (PS), into the Regular Army (RA) and the Army Reserve (AR).  In pertinent part, it states for prior service personnel a grade determination eligibility will be made.  Specifically, paragraph 16a(6) states that when an applicant, who had served in the grade of SGT or above, enlists but no vacancy exists in the applicant's current MOS, the Soldier may enlist as a SGT provided they accept retraining in a priority MOS provided by Human Resources Command (HRC) and the applicant has completed the appropriate NCOES leadership requirements or its equivalent.  HRC will determine the MOS for retraining.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The date the applicant enlisted in the USAR, 27 June 1997, is the date that establishes her PEBD.  The applicant has provided no documentation that this is incorrect.  
2.  The applicant's reduction was administrative in nature, not as a result of any disciplinary problem.  When a Soldier enlists in the RA, with prior service, a grade determination must be made.  In this case, it was determined that the applicant's primary MOS was over staffed in the pay grade of E-6.  Therefore, enlistment in that grade did not meet needs of the Army.

3.  The applicant was offered enlistment in pay grade E-6, if she reverted to her secondary MOS.  Since she declined the MOS reversion, she was offered and accepted enlistment in her primary MOS in the pay grade of E-5 with a priority MOS retraining option.  There was no error or injustice in this action.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JCR__  __DWT__  __RJW__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




__Jeffrey C. Redmann__
          CHAIRPERSON


INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060015344
SUFFIX

RECON
 
DATE BOARDED
20070524 
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
 
DATE OF DISCHARGE
 
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
  . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
112.0200
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011041

    Original file (20130011041.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    g. His recruiter told him he had to ship from Germany and he could keep an eye on him and that based on the orders so would his family. c. Records indicate the applicant was recommended for promotion to SGT in MOS 68Q by a promotion board in August 2010 and again in August 2011. The evidence shows he was promoted to SGT on 1 August 2012 in the USAR in MOS 68Q and he enlisted in the RA on 27 November 2012 for MOS 68Q.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016247

    Original file (20070016247.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his records be corrected to show he enlisted on 12 October 2006 in the rank and grade of Sergeant (SGT), E-5. The applicant’s DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing – Armed Forces of the United States) indicated a grade determination had been submitted on him, apparently on 6 June 2006, and his enlistment in the Regular Army was approved in the grade of E-5 provided he was otherwise qualified and enlisted for retraining in of the following MOSs:...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012744

    Original file (20130012744.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of his record to show he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 10 December 2012 in the rank/grade of sergeant (SGT)/ E-5. Paragraph 3-17 (Enlistment Pay Grades and Terms of Enlistment for RA Applicants with Prior Military Service) states: a. higher grade is not authorized for applicants who have been reduced in rank and discharged or a member of a Reserve Component (RC). Evidence shows he was promoted to E-5 in the ARNG in January 2010 while in the SROTC...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013399

    Original file (20070013399.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, a grade determination for Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 13F3O (Fire Support Specialist). The applicant's military service records contain a NGB Form 22 that shows he was honorably released from the ARNG on 20 June 2006 for the purpose of enlisting into another component of the U.S. Armed Forces. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was promoted to the grade of SSG/E-6 in his previous MOS 91W while in the ARNG.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007515C070205

    Original file (20060007515C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Karmin S. Jenkins | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. This official stated that a request for grade determination for the purpose of enlistment in the RA was approved in the grade of E-5, provided the applicant was otherwise qualified and enlists for retraining in MOS 88M under Option 3 (U. S. Army Training of Choice Enlistment Option only – No First Assignment could be guaranteed). The applicant's military...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014443

    Original file (20080014443.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no indication or evidence in the applicant's records that she was enrolled in or completed Phase II of MOS 54B BNCOC as stipulated in her promotion orders. The evidence of record further shows the applicant was conditionally promoted to SSG/E-6 on 30 June 1998 in MOS 54B contingent upon her successful completion of BNCOC. With respect to the applicant's contention that she should be considered for promotion to SFC/E-7, there is no evidence that the applicant met grade and/or NCOES...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013463

    Original file (20140013463.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states that in spite of requesting to retire due to completing a sufficient period of service for retirement, she was medically retired from the military with over 20 years of active federal service and was ineligible to reenlist due to having an RE Code of 4R. A Physical Disability Information Report, dated 10 June 2014, and U.S. Army Installation Management Command, Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Sill, OK, Orders 162-1314, dated 11 June 2014 (as amended by Orders...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024368

    Original file (20100024368.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). On 11 October 2005, she enlisted in the Virginia Army National Guard (VAARNG) and she was promoted to the rank of SGT on that date. While attending OCS, the applicant requested disenrollment because she was moving to Arkansas.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028633

    Original file (20100028633.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of her application, the applicant submitted a DD Form 4, dated 2 June 1997, that shows in item 8 (Agreements) that she was reenlisting in the U.S. Army this date for 2 years beginning in pay grade E-6. NJP may be imposed to correct, educate, and reform offenders who the imposing commander determines cannot benefit from less stringent measures; to preserve a Soldier's record of service from unnecessary stigma by record of court-martial conviction; and to further military...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001273

    Original file (20110001273.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Her records in the integrated Personnel Management Records System (iPERMS) shows she retired from the USAR due to completion of 20 or more years of active Federal service and was placed on the retired list in the rank/pay grade of SGT/E-5 on 1 February 1997. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 3964, provides that retired personnel may be advanced in grade to the highest grade satisfactorily held while on active duty, as determined by the Secretary of the Army, upon completion of 30 years of...