IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  30 April 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130013618 


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 correction of her records by adding a Non-Prior Service Enlistment Bonus (NPSEB) Addendum to her enlistment contract and showing an exception to policy (ETP) was approved allowing her to receive an NPSEB.

2.  She states that due to no fault of her own, a request for an ETP to allow her to receive the NPSEB was denied because her NPSEB Addendum could not be located.  She feels she has fulfilled her obligation to the Florida Army National Guard (FLARNG) for the last 4 years and she has earned the bonus promised to her when she enlisted.  A payment for her bonus was scheduled, but the payment was not made.  This shows intent to pay her the bonus.  She has not received a bonus payment since she enlisted.  She was moved to a military occupational specialty (MOS) 92A (Automated Logistical Specialist) position due to mobilization and she will return to an MOS 91D (Power Generation Equipment Repairer) position when her mobilization is over.

3.  She provides:

* e-mail, dated 24-26 August 2012, subject:  (Applicant)
* DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), dated 30 January 2013
* FLARNG memorandum, dated 19 March 2013, subject:  ETP for (Applicant)
* National Guard Bureau (NGB) memorandum, dated 14 June 2013, subject:  Request for ETP for NPSEB (Applicant)

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 30 September 2009, the applicant enlisted in the FLARNG for a period of 6 years.  She is currently serving in the FLARNG in the rank/pay grade of specialist/E-4.

2.  During her enlistment processing, she signed a Guard Annex (Enlistment/Reenlistment Agreement – ARNG – Service Requirements and Methods of Fulfillment).  The Guard Annex shows she was enlisting in Battery D, 3rd Battalion, 265th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, unit identification code (UIC) WYKSDD, and for training in MOS 91D.  Effective 1 October 2009, MOS 52D was converted to MOS 91D.

	a.  Section VII (Addendums) shows one addendum pertaining to the Montgomery GI Bill.  The Guard Annex does not indicate she was enlisting for an NPSEB.

	b.  Section VIII (Statement of Acknowledgment and Understanding) shows she had read and understood the Guard Annex and the statements therein were intended to constitute all promises and guarantees concerning her enlistment.  She acknowledged:

* no other promise or representation (verbal or otherwise) not annexed to her enlistment contract was valid or would be honored
* she had not been promised anything other than what was written in the Guard Annex and she waived any claim based upon any promise or representation not annexed to her contract

3.  Her records show she completed initial entry training and she was awarded MOS 91D.

4.  On 13 April 2011, the FLARNG issued Orders 103-078 reassigning her from the Power Generation Equipment Repairer duty position in MOS 91D to the Equipment Records and Parts Specialist duty position in MOS 92A.

5.  On 23 June 2011, she completed training for MOS 92A.  On 12 July 2011, the FLARNG issued Orders 193-099 awarding her primary MOS 92A and secondary MOS 91D and withdrawing primary MOS 91D effective 24 June 2011.  Her records show she has served in primary MOS 92A during a period of mobilized active duty service that ended on 9 August 2013.

6.  Her Enlisted Record Brief, dated 21 March 2014, shows she was reassigned to duty MOS 91D on 19 September 2013.

7.  A review of her records in the interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) failed to reveal an NPSEB Addendum or any evidence that she has received any payments for an NPSEB.

8.  She provides e-mail correspondence showing that a FLARNG Incentive Manager Assistant attempted to locate the applicant's bonus addendum in August 2012.  The Incentive Manager Assistant indicated the bonus addendum was not in the Information Management and Reporting Center (iMARC) or the applicant's records in iPERMS.  The Incentive Manager Assistant stated the applicant had a scheduled payment that she would not get unless the addendum could be located.  The Incentive Manager Assistant's request was forwarded to the applicant through a retention noncommissioned officer and a battalion S-1 noncommissioned officer.

9.  She provided two memoranda related to a request for an ETP.

	a. On 19 March 2013, the Director, Military Personnel, FLARNG, submitted a request for an ETP to the Chief, Guard Strength Education, NGB.  In his memorandum, the Director stated the applicant enlisted in the FLARNG for a $20,000.00 NPSEB in critical skill MOS 91D.  He stated the NPSEB Addendum could not be located, but a review of policy supported an incentive being offered when she enlisted.

	b.  On 14 June 2013, the Deputy G-1, ARNG, NGB, denied the request for an ETP based on violations of ARNG Selected Reserve Incentive Policy 07-06.  The ETP was denied based on two discrepancies:  the applicant was not serving in the MOS for which she contracted and the contract documents were missing.  The Deputy G-1 directed termination of the incentive with recoupment.

10.  A critical skill MOS list issued by NGB, dated 13 February 2009, shows MOS 52D listed as a critical skill MOS for the FLARNG.  MOS 92A is not listed as a critical skill MOS for the FLARNG on this list or any of the subsequently-issued critical skill MOS lists that were available for review.

11.  ARNG Selected Reserve Incentive Policy 07-06, in effect at the time of the applicant's enlistment in 2009, states the ARNG offers the NPSEB in an amount not to exceed $20,000.00 to NPS applicants who enlist for a critical UIC and/or critical skill.  The bonus will be terminated with recoupment due to voluntary transfer out of the critical UIC or critical skill for which the bonus is approved Applicants must sign a written agreement verifying their eligibility and acknowledging they understand the conditions that may result in termination of eligibility.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available evidence does not support the applicant's request for correction of her records by adding an NPSEB Addendum to her enlistment contract and showing an ETP was approved allowing her to receive an NPSEB.

2.  Although it appears there is a record in iMARC indicating the applicant was scheduled for an NPSEB payment, her enlistment records show no evidence of this incentive having been offered to her.  Her Guard Annex shows she acknowledged that no other promise or representation (verbal or otherwise) not annexed to her enlistment contract was valid or would be honored and she had not been promised anything other than what was written in the Guard Annex.  She waived any claim based upon any promise or representation not annexed to her contract.

3.  The records show she enlisted for and was trained in a critical skill MOS making her eligible for the NPSEB.  However, approximately 18 months after she enlisted, she was trained in and awarded a new MOS.  She states the change in her MOS was due to mobilization, which is supported by the fact that she has been reassigned to duty in her original MOS.  The available records do not indicate if the MOS change was voluntary or involuntary.  It appears that even if an NPSEB Addendum had been completed when she enlisted, her bonus eligibility would have been terminated with recoupment.

4.  In the absence of evidence showing she completed an NPSEB Addendum or served continuously in the MOS for which she enlisted, NGB correctly denied the request for an ETP to allow her to receive the NPSEB.  The available evidence does not provide a sufficient basis for recommending a change to NGB's decision, nor does it provide a sufficient basis for adding an NPSEB Addendum to her records.  Based on the available evidence, she is not entitled to the requested relief.

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 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)                                         AR20130013618



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130013618



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1