DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

MEH

Doc. No. 5373-08
19 August 2008

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO __

    

Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.c. 1552

Encl; (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) CNRC memo 1133 Ser 32/ of 18 Jul 08
(3) Subject’s naval record (CD and printed excerpts)

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Subject,
hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with
this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval
record be corrected to show that she enlisted in paygrade E-3,
vice E-1, based on college credits earned in foreign
institutions prior to her enlistment.

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. George, Pfeiffer, and
Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and
injustice on 28 July 2008 and, pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the corrective action indicated below should be
taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material
considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval
records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record
pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice,
finds as follows:

a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and
regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b. Petitioner entered the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on
30 July 2007 and shipped to active duty on 10 September 2007 (42
days).
Cc. Petitioner signed and executed an enlistment contract
enlisting her in pay grade E-1 but alleges she should have been
enlisted in paygrade E-3 based on college credits earned in the
Republic of Columbia prior to signing her contract.

d. COMNAVCRUITCOMINST 1130.8G establishes criteria for

enlistment in an advanced paygrade. Personnel with the
requisite number of college credits to meet the advanced
paygrade criteria must present official transcripts prior to
ship date. Foreign education must be translated and evaluated

by an education specialist to determine if it meets the
appropriate accreditation.

e. Petitioner’s DD Form 1966/1 (Record of Military
Processing) indicates a corrected education code of “16K”
Baccalaureate Degree; she was originally classified as “11L’’
High School (foreign country). Block 22a (Education) of the pp
Form 1966/2 lists Jorge Tadeo Lozana (university attended in
Bogata, Columbia), with the “Graduate” column marked “Yes.”
There are no entries on Petitioner’s DD Form 1966/4 regarding

her high school or college transcripts.

 

f. Petitioner signed an Advanced Paygrade Enlistment
Statement of Understanding on 9 August 2007 indicating she had

read and fully understood the requirements for advanced
paygrade, and that she was “NOT eligible for Advanced Paygrade.”

g- In June 2008, Petitioner filed the instant application
seeking a change to her enlistment contract to show that she
enlisted in pay grade E-3 vice E-1. To support her application,
she submitted a translation of a diploma which states that she
received a university degree from the Fundacion Universidad De
Bogata in September 2000 and a diploma showing completion of a
course of secondary education at La Fundacion Gimnasio Vermont,
Republic of Columbia in 1994. There is no evidence that the
transcripts or translations were proffered prior to her entry on
to active duty on 10 September 2007.

h. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the office
having cognizance over the subject matter addressed in
Petitioner’s application has recommended the request be denied,
noting that the transcripts and translations were not provided
prior to ship date as required by the existing policy and
governing instructions. Additionally, Petitioner Signed the
Advanced Paygrade Enlistment Statement of Understanding
indicating she was “NOT eligible for Advanced Paygrade.”
MAJORITY CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record,
notwithstanding the comments contained in enclosure (2), the
Majority concludes by 2 to 1 vote that Petitioner’s request
warrants favorable action. In the majority’s view, a
prospective recruit, with qualifying college credit, would not

knowingly enlist in pay grade E-1 if in fact she fully
understood that she was eligible for enlistment in an advanced
pay grade based on that college credit. The majority is of the
opinion that because Petitioner had actually earned college

credit before enlisting, she should receive an advanced pay
grade at enlistment for that college credit notwithstanding the

evidence that transcripts/translations were not provided before
shipping to recruit training.

MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION:

That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate,
to show that:

 

a. She enlisted in paygrade E-3, vice E-1, effective 10
September 2007 (Active Duty Service Date). She met the advanced
paygrade criteria based on college credits. (NOTE: The change

in the effective date of advancement to E-3 may also impact on
Petitioner’s E-4 advancement opportunity. If Petitioner was
eligible for, but did not take an E-4 examination because the
above change had not been made, the following procedures will
apply to remediate that missed opportunity. Petitioner should
take the next available E-4 advancement examination. Then
compare the Final Multiple Score (FMS) received on that
examination with the FMS that was required for the "missed"
examination cycle. A command endorsement/recommendation and a
copy of this letter must be included, the Board will determine

whether the request will be approved).

MINORITY CONCLUSION:

A minority of the Board (Mr. Pfeiffer) concludes that no relief
is warranted. The minority finds that it was incumbent on
Petitioner to submit college transcripts and translations in
accordance with the established policy. This is especially true
in this case because Petitioner had completed all of her
education well before she entered the DEP and thereafter spent
another 42 days in the DEP. This provided her with adequate
opportunity to obtain and submit transcripts and tranlations.

Moreover, Petitioner had Signed the Advanced Paygrade Enlistment
Statement of Understanding indicating she was “NOT eligible for

Advanced Paygrade.” In the minority’s view, Petitioner
knowingly executed a contract enlisting in pay grade E-1 and
such contract should be binding upon her.

MINORITY RECOMMENDATION:

That Petitioner’s request be denied.

4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the
Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that quorum was

present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the
foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s
proceedings in the above entitled matter.

fiLbiaw AUP

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN WILLIAM J. HESS, IIT
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your

review and action.

    

Executive D

Reviewed and Approved

Qsx%. CS.
BV -08

Robert T. Cali

Assistant General Counsel
Manpower and Reserve Affairs)