IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    13 May 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090008229 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests his date of rank (DOR) for staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 be adjusted to June 1993 and his records be corrected to show he was retired in the rank of master sergeant (MSG)/E-8.

2.  The applicant states the following:

	a.  His attendance at a civilian vocational school was not added or accepted for inclusion in his promotion packet.

	b.  His enlistment contract into the active Army in September 1986 indicates he enlisted in military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B (wheeled vehicle mechanic) under the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program (ACASP).

	c.  His enlistment contract indicates his vocational training would be recognized.

	d.  He was told the transcripts were not worth any points and the training would not be accepted for inclusion in his promotion packet.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his enlistment contract, his DA Form 3355 (Promotion Point Worksheet), and his vocational school transcript in support of his application.



CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having prior inactive and active service, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 23 September 1986 under the Delayed Entry Program in pay grade E-3.  His DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing - Armed Forces of the United States) shows he attended the Red Wing Area Vocational Technical Institute from August 1984 to May 1986.  His transcript from the Red Wing Area Vocational Technical Institute lists all of the courses he completed by quarter hours.

2.  On 23 September 1986, the applicant signed his DA Form 3286B-R (Statements for Enlistment) in which he acknowledged the following:

	a.  He understood his civilian acquired skill as an automotive mechanic would be recognized upon enlistment and during his service in the U.S. Army.

	b.  He understood that he would be considered for accelerated appointment to pay grade E-4 based on his demonstrated skill proficiency and conduct as a Soldier.

	c.  He understood that an appointment was not automatic, but dependent on his demonstration of skill proficiency and conduct.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 October 1986 in pay 
grade E-3 under the ACASP for MOS 63B.  He was advanced to pay grade E-4 on 4 December 1986.

4.  He was promoted to sergeant/E-5 with an effective date and DOR of 1 June 1990.

5.  Section B (Administrative Points), item 5 (Civilian Education), of the applicant's initial DA Form 3355, dated April 1993, shows he was granted a total of 5 points out of a maximum of 100 points for civilian education at "CTC" [acronym unknown].

6.  Item 5 of the applicant's reevaluation DA Form 3355, dated 24 June 1998, shows he was granted the maximum 100 points for civilian education for "CTC" (22 points) and the Red Wing Area Vocational Technical Institute (100 points).

7.  The applicant was promoted to SSG with an effective date and DOR of 1 November 2000.

8.  The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 30 September 2006 shows he retired as an SSG with a total of 20 years, 2 months, and 19 days of active military service.

9.  Kitzingen Transition Center Orders 046-005, dated 15 February 2006, released the applicant from active duty and placed him on the Retired List effective 1 October 2006.  These orders show his retired rank as SSG.

10.  There is no evidence which shows the applicant was promoted to sergeant first class/E-7 or MSG prior to his retirement.

11.  In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (USAHRC).  This office recommended the applicant's request be denied.  The opinion stated the following:

	a.  The applicant submitted proper documentation to obtain credit for promotion to private first class upon entering active duty.

	b.  The same documentation was submitted prior to the promotion board dated 15 April 1993.

	c.  The institution no longer exists, had lost their accreditation, or had been renamed which is the contributing factor as to why he did not receive credit before the 15 April 1993 promotion board.

	d.  The institution and address could not be accurately identified to provide proof and award civilian education promotion points.

	e.  The applicant should have been advised to contact the institution for an updated transcript from the student archive files.

	f.  The supporting documentation does not warrant a reevaluation of eligibility for the applicant's request to be retired as a MSG and adjustment of his DOR.

12.  A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant to allow him to provide comments.  In a 30 April 2010 electronic mail message the applicant stated the following:

* request reevaluation of the papers he submitted
* he was accepted into the active Army under the ACASP
* his enlistment contract shows the school was accredited; therefore, he was awarded the MOS

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) prescribes the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military personnel system.  Chapter 3 of this regulation governs semicentralized promotion board consideration to grades E-5 and E-6.  Under the instructions for preparing the DA Form 3355, it states that one point will be given for each semester hour earned for business/trade school/college.  For the purpose of awarding promotion points, one and one-half quarter hours are equal to one semester hour.

14.  Title 10, U.S. Code , section 3964, states that an enlisted member of the Regular Army is entitled, when his active service plus his service on the Retired List totals 30 years, to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade in which he served satisfactorily on active duty.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends he may have retired as an MSG if he had been promoted to SSG with the appropriate DOR.  However, there is insufficient evidence to determine that an error or injustice exists in this case.  It is speculative to presume he would have been promoted to E-7 or E-8 prior to his retirement.

2.  The applicant's contention that his civilian vocational school training was not accepted or included in his promotion packet was considered.  A review of the applicant's April 1993 DA Form 3355 shows his training at the Red Wing Area Vocational Technical Institute was not entered in item 5.  However, without being able to review all of the records, it cannot be determined why the applicant's civilian vocational school was not included.

3.  The USAHRC advisory opinion indicated the contributing factor as to why the applicant did not receive credit when appearing before the 15 April 1993 promotion board may have been that the institution no longer exists, had lost its accreditation, or had been renamed.

4.  The applicant contends that when he presented his transcripts from the school, he was told they were not worth any points and that they would not be accepted for inclusion in his promotion packet.  However, the evidence of record shows the applicant's civilian vocational school (Red Wing Area Vocational Technical Institute) was added to his DA Form 3355 in 1998 and he was granted the maximum 100 points.

5.  It cannot be determined whether the applicant would have been promoted to E-6 earlier if his points for attendance at the Red Wing Area Vocational Technical Institute had been added to his 1993 DA Form 3355 instead of his 1998 DA Form 3355.

6.  Orders were published in February 2006 which shows he was retired and placed on the Retired List as an SSG on 1 October 2006.

7.  By statute, an enlisted Soldier who retires for length of service retires in the grade that he holds on the date of his retirement.  The applicant held the rank of SSG on the date of retirement.

8.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that what the Army did at the time was correct and in accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time.  The burden of proving otherwise rests with the applicant.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__X____  ___X____  ___X____  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.



      __________X____________
                 CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090008229



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090008229



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1