PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            30 October 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001059649

	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	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adophi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that that his enlistment contract be corrected to show that he enlisted in the pay grade of E-4. 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that at the time he began processing for enlistment, he presented his recruiter with a copy of his transcripts from college and was informed that he would be able to enlist in the pay grade of E-4.  However, when he began processing at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) he was informed that because his transcripts did not reflect that he graduated, he would need a letter from the institution confirming that he had in fact graduated.  He obtained such a letter and was told that it was sufficient.  However, on the day he enlisted (4 April 2000) and shipped out to basic training, he was informed that the letter was not sufficient and that he was being enlisted in the pay grade of E-3 and his contract was changed accordingly.  He was also informed that he had 6 months to get the proper documentation and while attending his advanced individual training (AIT), he received his final official transcript.  He gave the document to his drill instructor and was informed that the student military personnel office had informed his drill sergeant that he had to process it at his first permanent duty station.  After graduating from AIT in November 2000, he went to his first duty station at Fort Drum, New York in December 2000 and was informed that because he had not submitted his paperwork within 6 months, it could not be processed.  He goes on to state that at the time he enlisted, he had in fact graduated, but did not attend the ceremony because it was held in May and he enlisted in April.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his initial enlistment contract showing that a pen and ink change was made to show 4 years of college instead of college graduate, a copy of his transcripts and a copy of the letter from the college he obtained prior to enlistment.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he initially enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 28 February 2000 in the pay grade of E-3.  His contract at that time indicated that he had graduated from the University of Maryland (UMD).

5.  On 2 March 2000 he presented a letter from the UMD Administrator of Graduate Services which certified that the applicant had completed all of the requirements for graduation with a bachelors degree in criminology and criminal justice in January, but that the degree would not be awarded until the next time degrees were conferred on 25 May 2000.

6.  On 4 April 2000, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 5 years, training as a counterintelligence agent, assignment to Fort Drum, and enlistment incentive program.  He was enlisted in the pay grade of E-3, completed his training and was transferred to Fort Drum where he is serving in the pay grade of E-3.
7.  In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (ODCSPER) Recruiting Policy Branch.  Officials at the ODCSPER opined, in effect, that an error occurred at the time of enlistment and that there was sufficient evidence at the time for the applicant to have been enlisted in the pay grade of E-4.  Officials at the ODCSPER recommended that relief be granted and that he be entitled to enlistment it the pay grade of E-4 effective 4 April 2000, with entitlement to all back pay and allowances.  The opinion was provided to the applicant and he concurred with the recommendation.

8.  Army Regulation 601-210 provides the policies and procedures for enlistment into the Army.  It provides, in pertinent part, that personnel who have successfully completed a degree producing program of 4 years duration at an institution listed in the Accredited Institution of Postsecondary Education Book and has been awarded a Bachelor’s degree or higher, is entitled to enlist in the pay grade of   E-4.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant clearly was qualified for enlistment in the Regular Army in the pay grade of E-4 based on his completion of Bachelor degree requirements at an appropriate institution, as required under the applicable regulations.  He subsequently took additional steps to confirm the evaluation within the prescribed timeframe; however, through no fault of the applicant, he was denied a benefit he is otherwise entitled to receive.

2.  Therefore, the Board finds that had the error not have occurred, the applicant would have been entitled to enlist in the pay grade of E-4, but was denied such enlistment through no fault of his own.

3.  Accordingly, it would be in the interest of justice to correct his records as an exception to policy to show that he enlisted in the pay grade of E-4 on 4 April 2000, with entitlement to all back pay and allowances from that date.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned enlisted in the pay grade of E-4 on 4 April 2000 and that he is entitled to all back pay and allowances from that date.

BOARD VOTE:  

___hbo__  __cla___  __ao____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_____Celia L. Adolphi____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059649	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/10/30	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  224	112.0200/GRD/DOR	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.