MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  3 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999026860

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Member	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		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:  In effect, that he be promoted to pay grade E-5 effective the date of his reenlistment on active duty.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the Army had a shortage of the Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 63B that he reenlisted for and was qualified in.  He should have been reenlisted at pay grade E-5 under the Stripes for Skills program.  He was told that he would have to stay in pay grade E-4 for 6 months then he would get his E-5 rank back.  He submits a memorandum from the unit career counselor in support of his application.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He reenlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 26 May 1998, for 3 years, in pay grade E-4.  The available documentation to support his reenlistment shows that he contracted for MOS 63B and the first assignment enlistment program.  He had almost 8 years prior active duty and over 7 years inactive service.  The available records indicate that his prior service was in MOS 63B and his pay grade on prior separation was E-5.

The applicant provides a memorandum from the unit career counselor.  The memorandum cites a “In/out message 98-02 dated 24 February 1998, which was in effect at the time of this soldier’s enlistment, shows that the Army was short SGT/E5 63Bs.”  A copy of the message was not provided.

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was provided by the Retention Management Division, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).  The opinion notes that the regulatory provision for RA enlistment in pay grade E-5 is the requirement for a valid vacancy within the enlistment applicant’s current MOS.  When no vacancy exists the enlistment applicant may be eligible for enlistment in pay grade E-4.  The PERSCOM also notes that there were no vacancies for sergeant (E-5) at the time the applicant enlisted.  The applicant was provided a copy of the opinion for rebuttal but failed to respond within the established time limit.

Army Regulation 601-210 provides the policy for enlistment in the RA.  Paragraph 3-17. B. (3) states that the applicant was eligible for enlistment in pay grade E-5 provided a valid vacancy exists for the MOS in pay grade E-5.  There is no mention of restoration to pay grade E-5 after 6 months service.

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

1.  The applicant was enlisted in pay grade E-4 in accordance with regulations in effect at the time.  There are no regulatory provisions for automatic promotion or restoration to pay grade E-5 after 6 months service.

2.  Notwithstanding the memorandum from the unit career counselor, the PERSCOM has stated that there were no valid E-5 vacancies for the applicant when he reenlisted.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

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

__js___  ___cf_____  ___ec_____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026860	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000803	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  112.02	Promotion	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.