MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            26 October 2000   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000044958

	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	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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 his enlistment contract be corrected to reflect that he initially enlisted for a period of 4 years.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant states, in effect, that he enlisted for a period of 4 years but notes that his initial enlistment contract has “conflicting terms of enlistment.”  He states that the DD Form 4-3 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States) indicates an enlistment term of 3 years while the DD Form 3286-66 (Statement of Understanding United States Army Incentive Enlistment Program) has “a 6 year period handwritten over a 4.”  He states in a 10 May 2000 request for an “antedated extension” that “Finance” has his separation date as 8 May 2000 but the Army’s automated records database (SIDPERS) has his separation date as 8 May 2002.  He notes that he initially intended to reenlist but due to personal reason has since changed his mind and wishes to separate from the Army.  His application to the Board is dated 10 May 2000.

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

On 23 March 1996 the applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve for a period of 8 years under the Delayed Entry/Enlistment Program (DEP).  As part of his enlistment contract he acknowledged that he was required to enlist in the Regular Army not later than 9 May 1996 for a period “not less than 6 years.”  Page one of his DD Form 4 series, which the applicant initialed, confirms his initial enlistment contract requirements.

On 9 May 1996 the applicant completed documents requesting discharge from the DEP for the purpose of enlisting in the Regular Army.  Item 20a on page three of the applicant’s DD Form 4 series does indicate that he was enlisting in the Regular Army for a period of “3” years as the applicant noted in his request to this Board.  An automated DD Form 1966/1 (Record of Military Processing) also notes the applicant’s TOE (Term of Enlistment) was 3 years.  However, all of the remaining documents associated with the applicant’s enlistment in the Regular Army, including his DA Form 3286-59 (Statement of Enlistment United States Army Enlistment Program U.S. Army Delayed Enlistment Program), DA Form 3286-63 (Statement for Enlistment United States Army Training Enlistment Program), and DA Form 3286-56, reflect a term of enlistment of 6 years.  The number six is handwritten on each of the documents and while the “6” on the DA Form 3286-56 is written over it is not clear that it was written over a “4” as the applicant states in his request to the Board.

As part of the applicant’s enlistment he was guaranteed an enlistment bonus of $4000.00, training as a Bradley Fighting Vehicle Systems Mechanic (63T), and assignment to Fort Hood, Texas.  U.S. Army Recruiting Command Message 95-066, which authorized the cash enlistment bonus, indicates that entitlement to the $4000.00 enlistment bonus was tied to enlisting in specialty 63T for a period of 6 years.  A 3 year enlistment in that specialty carried no enlistment bonus whereas a 4 year enlistment entitled an individual to only $2000.00.

The applicant’s automated DA Form 2A (Personnel Qualification Record – Part 1) indicates the applicant enlisted for a period of 6 years and that his service contract expires (ETS) on 8 May 2002.  The applicant’s Armed Forces Identification Card (DA Form 2), issued on 19 April 2000, which the applicant authenticated, also reflects and ETS date of 8 May 2002.

Information from the Defense Finance and Accounting Office (DFAS) in Indianapolis confirmed that the applicant’s original separation date, according to information contained in his finance record, was 8 May 2000 although it is currently listed as 8 December 2000 based on a recent service contract extension.

Army Regulation 601-280, which establishes the policies and provisions for the reenlistment of enlisted soldiers, states that a soldier may be discharged for immediate reenlistment at any point not earlier than 12 months and not later than 3 months prior to their scheduled separation date (ETS). 

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

1.  While the Board acknowledges that two of the applicant’s enlistment documents reflect an initial term of enlistment of 3 years all of his other enlistment documents reflect an enlistment period of 6 years.  It is unclear why the DFAS recorded his separation date as 8 May 2000 when there is no indication on any of the applicant’s enlistment documents that he enlisted for a period of 4 years.  Had the DFAS recorded his separation date as 8 May 1999, based on the 3 year entries on his enlistment contract, or 8 May 2002 based on the 6 year entries on all of his other enlistment documents, it would have been understandable.  As it is one could speculate that the 8 May 2000 date may merely have been a typographical error, which was never corrected, because it was never questioned until the date had come and gone and the issue of entitlement to pay was raised.

2.  Additionally, the Board notes that the applicant acknowledged that the Army’s automated database reflected a separation date of 8 May 2002 as did his Armed Forces Identification Card.  Had he truly believed that he had enlisted for a period of 4 years, vice 6 years, he has not made it clear why he waited until 2 days after (10 May 2000) what he believed to be his separation date (8 May 2000) to question the validity of his initial enlistment term.  The Board also notes that the window for reenlistment occurs not earlier than 12 months and not later that 3 months prior to a soldier’s ETS date.  Had the applicant, as he contends, intended to reenlist he, his commander, or his reenlistment NCO should have noticed the discrepancy in what the applicant believed to be his scheduled separation date and the separation date recorded in the Army’s automated data base.

3.  The applicant’s receipt of a $4000.00 enlistment bonus was tied directly to his enlistment in specialty 63T for a period of 6 years.  Had he enlisted, as he contends, for only 4 years he would have received only $2000.00 and had he enlisted for the 3 year term as indicated in item 20a on page three of his DD Form 4 series he would not have been entitled to any cash enlistment bonus. 

4.  The Board can only speculate on the reason for the discrepancies in the applicant’s term of enlistment on his enlistment documents.  However, the Board does note that such discrepancies have occurred in other instances and the Board has routinely corrected those discrepancies when petitioned to do so by an applicant.  There is however, no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, that his intention was to enlist for a period of 4 years and as such there is no basis for the Board to provide the relief requested in this case.

5.  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 that requirement.

6.  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:

___mmd__  __aao___  __wdp___  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000044958	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001026	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	Grant	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.