RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        2 August 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060017205


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Curtis L. Greenway            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert W. Soniak              |     |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, in effect, that his records be corrected to
show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 October 2006 in the rank and
grade of Master Sergeant (MSG), E-8.

2.  The applicant states he spent almost 9 years on active duty from 1989
through 1998 and separated in the rank of Staff Sergeant (SSG), E-6.  He
enlisted in the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) and spent almost 9 years there,
being promoted to MSG, E-8 on 1 November 2005.

3.  The applicant states that when he went through the procedures to enlist
in the Regular Army, he was told there were no open positions for him to
fill in his current rank of MSG or as a Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7 due
to the 21-series career management field (CMF) being overstrength.  He was
allowed to return to active duty as a SSG because there were only three
Soldiers waiting for promotion.  He is not sure why everyone keeps saying
the 21-series CMF is overstrength in E-7 and E-8 because he is at a unit
now that has no First Sergeant or SFC.  He has read of many other units
being placed in the same situations.  He is trying to get his rank back
since now he knows there is a great need for SFCs and First Sergeants and
should have been allowed to keep the rank he earned after almost 18 years.

4.  The applicant provides an email dated 20 September 2006; his MSG
promotion orders; military occupational specialty (MOS) orders, dated
        10 September 2006; a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 3 March
2006; a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) for a
First Sergeant course ending 21 July 2006; a 15 June 2006 email concerning
his First Sergeant course enrollment status; a First Sergeants Course
completion certificate, dated 21 July 2006; a DA Form 1059 for the Advanced
Noncommissioned Officer Course with a course completion certificate; his DA
Form 2A USAR (Personnel Qualification Record); a DD From 1172 (Application
for Uniformed Services Identification Card DEERS Enrollment); and two
Chronological Statements of Retirement Points.

5.  The applicant also provides a 19 October 2006 email concerning his
assignment preferences/assignment; a document, possibly a worksheet,
listing his pay entry basic date (28 March 1989), basic active service date
(25 July 1996), and date of rank (11 October 2006) and with question marks
next to his basic active service date and date of rank; three Regular Army
enlistment contracts; four USAR enlistment contracts (one of them for the
Delayed Entry Program); an endorsement, dated 29 December 1997, amending
separation orders; a DA Form 5691-R (Request for Reserve Component
Assignment Orders, dated 29 December 1997; and a DA Form 4991-R
(Declination of Continued Service Statement), dated 17 June 1997.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the USAR (Delayed Entry Program) on 17
February 1989.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 March 1989.  He was
honorably discharged from the Regular Army on 31 March 1998 in the rank and
grade of SSG, E-6.  He enlisted in the USAR effective 1 April 1998.

2.  The applicant was promoted to SFC, E-7 on 1 June 2002.  He was promoted
to MSG, E-8 on 1 November 2005 in MOS 21X (General Engineering Supervisor).
 He was laterally appointed to First Sergeant on 3 March 2006.

3.  On 8 July 2006, the applicant requested a conditional release to enlist
in the Active Army.

4.  In a 20 September 2006 email from the U. S. Army Human Resources
Command (USAHRC), apparently to the applicant’s Regular Army recruiter,
USAHRC noted that a grade determination was processed and he was approved
for enlistment in the rank of SSG and retraining into MOS 21C.  The
grade/MOS determination was based upon findings that:

      MSG 21Z was at 106 percent strength with 25 pending promotion and
zero selected for promotion;

      SFC 21H was at 108 percent strength with 15 pending promotion and
zero selected for promotion;

      SSG 21H was at 106 percent strength with 3 pending promotion and zero
selected for promotion; and

      MOS 21C was a critically-short MOS and was at 96 percent strength at
SSG and 75 percent at Sergeant, E-5.

5.  USAHRC noted that it would entertain an exception to allow the
applicant to stay in MOS 21H as a SSG since there were only 3 pending
promotion.

6.  On 30 July 2007, USAHRC informed the Board analyst that MOS 21X’s
strength figure in October 2006 was at 102 percent with 3 pending promotion
and zero selected for promotion.


7.  On 11 October 2006, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army in MOS
21H (Construction Engineering Supervisor) in the rank and grade of SSG, E-
6.

8.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from
the Force Alignment Division, USAHRC.  The advisory opinion originally
cited the applicant’s enlistment contract of 29 September 2000 but later
corrected the advisory opinion to refer to his enlistment contract of 11
October 2006.  The advisory opinion stated that it was determined the
applicant’s enlistment grade of E-6 was correct and that he could request a
[SSG] date of rank correction in accordance with Army Regulation 600-20
(Army Command Policy).

9.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for
comment or rebuttal.  The applicant stated the information that was given
to him that influenced his signing his enlistment contract was misleading
because when he returned to active duty he was placed in a position that he
was told did not exist due to MOSs 21X and 21H being overstrength.  He
knows there are units with positions open in both MSG and SFC and that some
of those positions are being filled with SSGs, Sergeants, and even
Specialists.  He was given the option to sign his enlistment contract for
an SSG position or not return to active duty.  So he returned to active
duty as a SSG and got placed into a MSG slot that he was told did not exist
and found out there are three MSG/First Sergeant slots that he would have
qualified for in the same unit.

10.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment
Program) states that an applicant for enlistment in the Regular Army who is
a current member of a Reserve Component in the rank of SFC through Sergeant
Major regardless of years of service but with fewer than 20 years will have
their enlistment grade and eligibility determined by the Commanding
General, USAHRC.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It is recognized that the applicant spent 9 years in the USAR, 4 of
those  years in the ranks of SFC and MSG, prior to his enlisting in the
Regular Army on 11 October 2006.

2.  The applicant’s contentions, that he is not sure why everyone keeps
saying the 21-series CMF is overstrength in E-7 and E-8 because he is at a
unit now that has no First Sergeant or SFC and that he has read of many
other units being placed in the same situations, is acknowledged.


3.  However, the applicant’s grade determination was based upon Army-wide
strengths in his MOS/CMF.  As a senior noncommissioned officer, he should
be aware of and may have even experienced in the past situations where one
installation may be overstrength in a grade/MOS whereas another
installation may be understrength in the same grade/MOS.  Headquarters,
Department of the Army tries to prevent MOS imbalances at
installations/units; however, it is not unusual that imbalances still
occur.  Such an imbalance does not, however, require Headquarters,
Department of the Army to compound the imbalance by making inappropriate
grade determinations on prior-service applicants for enlistment.

4.  The applicant contended, in his rebuttal to the advisory opinion, that
the information that was given to him that influenced his signing his
enlistment contract was misleading.  In September 2006, the applicant was
informed that he could not enlist in the Regular Army as either a SFC or as
a MSG.  He could have remained a MSG in the USAR until the Army-wide
strength for the pertinent MOSs went down; instead, he voluntarily elected
to accept enlistment in October 2006 as a SSG.

5.  There is insufficient evidence that would warrant granting the relief
requested.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__clg___  __rws___  __ksj___  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.




                                  __Curtis L. Greenway__
                                            CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060017205                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070802                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |112.02                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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