BOARD DATE:	  15 July 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090015948 


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 that his record be corrected to show he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) in the grade and rank of sergeant (SGT)/E-5 with a date of rank of 29 May 2008.

2.  The applicant states he was released from his contract in the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) to enlist in the RA on 29 May 2008 as a specialist (SPC)/E-4.  He also states he was released from the USMC IRR as an E-5 and in accordance with Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program), section II, paragraph 3-17a(3)(b), he should have been allowed to enlist in the RA as an E-5.

3.  The applicant states he believes the error occurred because the USMC did not actually promote him in its system and he had to appear before the Board for Correction of Naval Records to have his grade/rank corrected.  He continues to state that his date of rank to E-5 in the USMC IRR was 1 October 2007, prior to his enlistment in the RA.  He also states he failed to mention his promotion to E-5 at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) because he was under the impression that you lost one pay grade when you changed components, but he did not know his USMC rank was incorrect.  He concludes by stating he feels he is being punished for an error the USMC made and that his rank should be changed to E-5 and backdated to 29 May 2008.

4.  The applicant submitted the following documents in support of his application:

* DA Form 3286 (Statement of Understanding - Regular Army Enlistment Delay for Applicants with Prior Service or an Existing Military Service Obligation)
* DA Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing - Armed Forces of the United States)
* Docket Number 1427-09, dated 29 April 2009, Department of the Navy Board for Correction of Naval Records
* Honorable Discharge Certificate from the USMC, dated 28 May 2008
* DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document - Armed Forces of the United States, dated 29 May 2009

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the RA on 29 May 2008 in pay grade E-4 for military occupational specialty (MOS) 25B (Information Systems Operator-Analyst).

2.  The applicant submitted a DA Form 3286 which shows the following:

* Program 9A (United States Army Training Enlistment Program)
* entry grade as determined in accordance with Army Regulation 601-210 will be E-4
* MOS 25B (Information Systems Operator-Analyst)
* skill level 1
* applicant signature and date 12 May 2008

3.  The applicant submitted a DA Form 1966 which shows the following:

* 18g (Pay Grade) – E-1
* 18h (Date of Grade) – 29 May 2008
* 18o (PMOS/AFS) – 25B1O
* 24a (Are you now or have you ever been in any regular or reserve branch of the Armed Forces or in the Army National Guard or Air National Guard?) – Yes
* Remarks, 24d Explanation – USMC Reserves

4.  The applicant submitted a copy of an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the USMC which shows he was honorably discharged as an SGT/E-5 on 28 May 2008.

5.  Docket Number 1427-09, Department of the Navy Board for Correction of Naval Records, dated 29 April 2009, shows the applicant's Naval record was reviewed and his record was corrected to show he was promoted to pay 
grade E-5 effective 1 October 2007.

6.  On 14 December 2009 in the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Force Alignment Division, U.S. Army Human Resources Command.  The advisory opinion recommended disapproval of the applicant's request for reinstatement of his pay grade to E-5.  At the time of the applicant's enlistment, his records indicated that his rank in the USMC was corporal/E-4.  The advisory opinion continued that the applicant neglected to inform USAREC of the rank discrepancy which resulted in his entry in the Army as an E-4 in MOS 25B.  In May 2008, the Army was not accepting prior-service applicants in pay grade E-5 into MOS 25B.  Therefore, had his records indicated his pay grade was E-5, he would have attended training for another MOS and been subjected to further grade evaluation.  The advisory opinion concludes by stating that the applicant's failure to address a rank discrepancy at the time of his enlistment indicates he voluntarily accepted the Army's offer for MOS 25B in pay grade E-4.

7.  On 1 October 2009, the advisory opinion was sent to the applicant.  The applicant did not respond to the advisory opinion.

8.  Chapter 3 of Army Regulation 601-210 establishes the policies and procedures for enlistment in the RA and U.S. Army Reserve for prior-service applicants.  It notes that prior-service applicants must meet the eligibility criteria outlined in this chapter and must also meet the requirements of options for which they are enlisting.

9.  Army Regulation 601-210 prescribes the policy and procedures for the enlistment of personnel in the RA and U.S. Army Reserve.  Chapter 2, paragraph 3-17, of this regulation specifies that an applicant in pay grade E-5 and above must submit a formal request to determine assignment availability and a vacancy must exist in the applicant's former MOS.

10.  Army Regulation 601-210, chapter 9, paragraph 9-7, specifies that an applicant who is enlisting for 9A (U.S. Training Enlistment Program) and is prior service must be willing to retrain in order to enlist under this program and will be guaranteed a specific MOS.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The preponderance of the evidence shows the applicant accepted enlistment in the RA in pay grade E-4 and MOS 25B as authenticated by his signature on the DA Form 3286 and DD Form 1996 series documents and ultimately on the DD Form 4 on the date of his enlistment.

2.  The evidence submitted by the applicant and his own admission shows he was aware he was an E-5 in the USMC IRR prior to his enlistment in the RA.  However, by his own choice, he did not inform the MEPS of the results of the grade determination by the Board for Correction of Naval Records.

3.  The evidence does show the applicant accepted the determination that he would be enlisted in pay grade E-4 and did so in May 2008.  As noted in the advisory opinion, the applicant enlisted in the RA as an SPC/E-4 for MOS 25B and had he disclosed his action with the Board for Correction of Naval Records, he would have been ineligible for MOS 25B at pay grade E-5.

4.  Had the applicant been unhappy with that determination, he could have elected not to enlist.  Rather, he executed his enlistment contract knowing full well that he was enlisting in pay grade E-4.  Therefore, he in not entitled to correction of his records to show his pay grade as SGT/E-5.

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)                                         AR20090015948



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1