MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            22 December 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999024153

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That he be paid his $5.000.00 reenlistment bonus..

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he completed the appropriate addendum for the cash bonus but he was later told that his military occupational specialty (MOS) was not a skill approved by the Department for a bonus.  He contends that since he has honored his contract “not grudgingly but enthusiastically”, he should be paid the bonus.

In support of his request the applicant submits a memorandum from his unit’s finance and accounting office (F&AO) which had denied payment of the applicant’s bonus.  In that memorandum the F&AO stated that the applicant’s MOS was not on the list of those approved for a bonus.  He also submits a copy of his cash bonus addendum in which he is promised a $5,000.00 bonus for enlisting as physical therapy specialist.
 
EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records could not be located and, therefore, were unavailable for the Board to review.  The following information was derived from documentation supplied to the Board by the applicant.

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 February 1974, reenlisted with a $2,000.00 bonus, was promoted to pay grade E-5, and was honorably discharged on 31 March 1981.  

He enlisted in the USAR in pay grade E-5 on 4 September 1996.  At the time he submitted his application he was serving in the USAR assigned to a USAR unit in pay grade E-5.

Army Regulation l35-7, in effect at the time, paragraph 4-2, authorized a reenlistment bonus for members of units who had at least 6, but not more than l0 years of total military service at the expiration of their term of service (ETS), and who reenlisted within 3 months before or 24 hours after their ETS.  A bonus was authorized for reenlistment in either a critical MOS, or a critical unit, as designated by the Department of the Army.  One half of the bonus was to be paid at the time of reenlistment, and the remainder would be paid in six additional annual installments. 

Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of reserve enlisted personnel.  Chapter 9 provides for individuals who were promised a benefit in conjunction with their enlistment or reenlistment which the Army cannot honor.  These individuals have the option of either requesting immediate discharge or waiving the benefit and remaining in the USAR.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant is not entitled to a cash bonus since his MOS was not on the list of those skills approved by the Department.

2.  While it is unfortunate that the applicant was led to believe that he would receive a cash bonus, to grant his request would be in contravention of the Congressional intend of the bonus program, to entice soldiers to enlist for critically short units or skills. 

3.  The applicant had the option to request discharge due to defective enlistment.  If he had chosen that option he could have enlisted for an MOS which would have been bonus eligible.  However, that would have required him to consent to reenter active duty for training to become qualified for the new MOS.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_rvo_____  _aao____  _ewl____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024153	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19991222	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.05	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.