RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        23 February 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050010225


      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. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Rodmann            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David K. Hassenritter         |     |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 that all record of his having a Military Police
(MP) military occupational specialty (MOS) be removed and that he be
allowed to reenlist for the bonus authorized a 56M (Chaplain's Assistant).
He also requests that he be paid two years of back pay for the difference
between E-4 and E-5.

2.  The applicant states he enlisted in the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) in
2001 for assignment to the 346th MP Company because he was told he was
already MOS-qualified due to his prior service.  He was given a bonus and
then deployed twice for two years total.  While deployed, he put in a
promotion packet, but the packet was returned to him because the Army
decided he was not MOS-qualified.  He was therefore unable to get promoted
for two years.  Once he returned to his troop program unit (TPU), the Army
took back the bonus money and told him to find another MOS.  He tried to go
to the MP school; however, he was told he was color blind and would not be
allowed to be an MP.  Then he transferred to the Chaplain's section at the
89th Regional Reserve Command.  He requested to reenlist as a 56M for the
bonus but was told he could not because he still had two years to go on his
contract.

3.  The applicant provides no additional supporting evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant has served in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

2.  The applicant had prior service in the U. S. Marine Corps where he
served as a Corrections Specialist.  He enlisted in the Army National Guard
on 18 May 1989 for one year where he apparently served as a 76Y (Unit
Supply Specialist).

3.  On 28 August 2001, the applicant enlisted in the USAR for 6 years.  His
DA Form 5261-5-R (Selected Reserve Incentive Program – USAR Prior Service
Enlistment Bonus Addendum) shows he was qualified in MOS 95B (Military
Police) "in which he had successfully served on active duty and attained a
level of qualification commensurate with my grade and years of service, and
which has been approved as a bonus MOS and correlates to the position
vacancy for which I am enlisting."  The bonus was $5,000.00.  The bonus
would be paid in an initial installment of $2,500.00.  The remainder would
be paid in 6 increments of $416.66 on satisfactory completion of each year
of the 6-year term of service in a USAR Selected Reserve TPU.

4.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from
the Incentives and Budget Branch, Enlisted Accessions Division, Office of
the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1.  That office noted that the applicant's
Military Entrance Processing Station counselor had erroneously allowed the
applicant's prior service in the U. S. Marine Corps as a Corrections
Specialist to translate to an enlistment in the USAR in MOS 95B.  Based
upon his enlistment contract as a 95B, he was authorized a $5,000.00 prior
service enlistment bonus plus other incentives.  The applicant deployed
twice as a 95B and remained a 95B until being told he was not qualified.
He was then retrained and designated a 56M on 6 May 2005.  That office
recommended the applicant be authorized to retain the incentives for which
he enlisted.

5.  An adjunct to the advisory opinion, in regards to the applicant's
promotion concerns, was obtained from a Sergeant Major in the Office of the
Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1.  That individual noted the applicant could only
have been recommended for promotion if he had been MOS-qualified and he
could only have been promoted against a vacant position, again requiring
MOS qualification first.

6.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for
comment or rebuttal.  He indicated that he did not understand all of the
opinion.  He questioned whether he could reenlist now for the 56M bonus.
He questioned if the advisory opinion meant he would get the enlistment
bonus up until he was reclassified.  He also noted the Sergeant Major was
correct in his understanding of the regulatory requirements in regards to
his promotion.  The applicant states his point is that he was not permitted
to put in his promotion packet for almost two years because the Army made
that mistake during his enlistment.

7.  Army Regulation 140-158 (Enlisted Personnel Classification, Promotion,
and Reduction).  The regulation states, in pertinent part, that the Soldier
must be fully qualified in the MOS for which he or she is selected for
promotion.  Although all Soldiers may be eligible to be considered for
promotion, only those Soldiers recommended by their immediate commander
will be referred to the selection board.  Promotion of Soldiers to Sergeant
and Staff Sergeant will be based on (1) order of sequence by MOS on the
recommended list; (2) an appropriate vacant positions; and (3) promotable
status.  To be promoted, a Soldier must be (1 in a promotable status; (2)
listed on a valid permanent promotion recommended list; and (3) in the
proper sequence order when promoted off the list.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It would not be appropriate to remove all record of the applicant
having an MP MOS.  Although he was not 95B qualified, the evidence of
record does show he enlisted for the MOS and he served in that MOS for a
period of time.
2.  It would not be appropriate for the Board to arbitrarily allow the
applicant to reenlist for the bonus authorized a 56M.  His qualifications
for reenlistment are better determined by local retention personnel.

3.  The applicant enlisted for a $5,000.00 bonus in MOS 95B due to an error
on the part of his MEPS counselor.  The applicant successfully performed
duties in MOS 95B until he was reclassified into MOS 56M on 6 May 2005.

4.  It appears the only reason the applicant could not be classified into
MOS 95B is because he was color blind.  Although he served only about 4
years of his       6-year commitment as a 95B (and thus far less than 5
years of his 6-year commitment), it would be equitable to show the
applicant is entitled, as an exception to policy, to the entire $5,000.00
bonus for which he enlisted.

5.  The problems the applicant experienced with regard to promotion to E-5
are regrettable and his recent promotion to E-5 in MOS 56M is praiseworthy.
 However, it would be speculative to presume he would have been promoted to
 E-5 in MOS 95B at an earlier time.

6.  Several variables determine when a Soldier can be promoted,
particularly, there must be an appropriate vacant position and the Soldier
must be in the proper sequence order when promoted off a valid permanent
promotion recommended list.  It is speculative to presume the applicant, as
a 95B or any other MOS, would have been promoted at any one particular
time.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

__lds___  __jcr___  __dkh___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board
recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual
concerned be corrected by paying to him, as an exception to policy, the
entire $5,000.00 enlistment bonus that would have been due him had he been
fully qualified in MOS 95B except for the fact he was not qualified for the
MOS due to a physical impairment (colorblindness).

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
all record of his having an MP MOS be removed, allowing him to reenlist for
the bonus authorized a 56M, and paying him two years of back pay for the
difference between E-4 and E-5.




                                  __Linda D. Simmons____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050010225                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060223                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schneider                           |
|ISSUES         1.       |128.05                                  |
|2.                      |128.00                                  |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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