MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           28 March 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001063421

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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 rank of Sergeant (SGT), E-5 be backdated to the date he enlisted with all due back pay and allowances and that he be promoted to Staff Sergeant (SSG), E-6.

APPLICANT STATES:  That when he enlisted in the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR), his recruiter could have ensured that he enlisted as an E-5, instead of an E-4, because he had received his Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) license in February 1996.  He lost 1 year, 2 months, and 2 days (time in grade) because of this.  He signed on to the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program under terms that his first tour would be in Portland, OR.  He was later informed that he would not be stationed in Portland because his orders had been amended but he was unaware of the amendments.  He called his wife the same day they were to close on a house in the Portland area.  This caused him a financial hardship.  He had orders to go to the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC) in August 2001 but those orders were revoked in June 2001.  The Qualitative Management Program (QMP) board then did not select him for continued service in the AGR because he had not completed PLDC.  All the time he spent in the USAR and the AGR he was told his Air Force PLDC would be accepted, but when his promotion packet was submitted he was informed his Air Force PLDC was not acceptable.  Had he known that, he would certainly have finished the school earlier.  He feels cheated because people who were supposed to be knowledgeable failed to properly advise him.  

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

He served in the Regular Air Force from 31 May 1983 – 3 May 1991 and separated in pay grade E-4.  His Certificate of Discharge or Release from Active Duty, DD Form 214, from the Air Force shows he was awarded the Noncommissioned Officer Professional Military Education Graduate Ribbon.

The applicant enlisted in the Florida Army National Guard on 4 June 1993 for      6 years, in pay grade E-4, as a high school graduate, for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 91B (Medical Specialist), with assignment to the 131st Mobile Army Surgical Hospital, Temple Terrace, FL.  He transferred to the Texas Army National Guard on 11 April 1994 with assignment to the 217th Evacuation Hospital, San Antonio, TX.  

On 20 February 1996, the applicant was licensed to practice as a licensed vocational nurse in the State of Texas.

On 10 August 1996, the applicant requested transfer to the USAR and on           9 October 1996 he enlisted in the USAR in pay grade E-4.  The Enlistment – Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States, DD Forms 4/1 and 4/2, available does not indicate that he enlisted for any specific enlistment option.  
The applicant was promoted to SGT on an unknown date.

Orders dated 3 May 1999 ordered the applicant to active duty in an AGR status with a report date of 14 June 1999 to the 671st Float Bridge Company in Portland, OR.  These orders were amended on 11 June 1999 by changing his assignment to the 671st Float Bridge Company in Everett, WA.

The applicant apparently was scheduled to attend PLDC on 17 August 2001.  Orders dated 27 June 2001 apparently revoked his PLDC orders.  

The applicant was informed by memorandum dated 26 July 2001 that a Department of the Army USAR AGR QMP Board denied him continued service.  He appealed the QMP.  His appeal indicated that he had been denied continued service because he had not completed PLDC.  It also indicated that orders dated 22 May 2001 would have sent him to PLDC but they were revoked due to funding problems.  The results of his appeal should be available around May 2002.

In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was requested from the Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, U. S. Total Army Personnel Command.  However, that office returned the request without action, noting that the applicant’s request contained insufficient supporting documents or clarification of the alleged error.

Army Regulation 601-210 governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army and the USAR.  Paragraph 3-18g states that applicants who enlist for the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program (ACASP) and the authorized enlistment grade under this paragraph is lower than that authorized from the ACASP MOS in table 7-1 will be given an enlistment grade authorized by table 7-1.  Table 7-1 states that, to qualify for MOS 91C (Practical Nurse) with later appointment to E-5, the enlistee must have successfully completed a state-approved course in practical, registered, or vocational nursing, successfully passed the National Council of State Boards of Nursing licensure exam, and possess a current State license as a practical, registered, or vocational nurse.  Proficiency training required by paragraph 7-9 must be performed under the supervision of an Army Nurse Corps Officer or noncommissioned officer (NCO) qualified in MOS 91C.  Paragraph 7-9 states that ACASP enlistment training options require completion of a specified period of proficiency training as a prerequisite for awarding of the MOS.  The training is a transition period in which the member learns to apply the civilian acquired skill to the military.  Proficiency training time will be used by commanders to evaluate the person’s ability to function in the specific MOS.  Before award of MOS and promotion to accelerated pay grade, the member must be able to perform the duty requirements of the MOS.

Army Regulation 140-158 prescribes policies pertaining to the classification, promotion, reduction, and grade restoration of enlisted soldiers of the USAR.  Paragraph 4-9 states that a centralized promotion system has been in effect for the promotion of USAR AGR soldiers since January 1979.  A soldier will be promoted in the MOS recommended by the board, according to their sequence number on the list.  Among other listed eligibility and general criteria for consideration, a soldier must be a graduate of the NCO Educational System (NCOES) course or equivalency required for his or her current grade as required by paragraph 8-2.  Paragraph 4-10b(3) stated that a soldier must have completed 12 continuous months in an AGR status by the zone cut-off date; however, this paragraph was rescinded on 17 November 1998.  The new provision is that the required amount of continuous service in an AGR status would be announced in the memorandum of instruction.  Paragraph 8-1 states that successful completion of an NCOES course, either a resident or corresponding studies course, is required of all USAR NCOs commensurate with grade and rank per paragraph  8-2.  Ideally, the NCOES course required by a grade should be completed before a soldier is promoted to that grade.  Paragraph 8-2e states that a SGT must be a graduate of the PLDC Active Army (PLDC-AC) or the PLDC Reserve Component (PLDC-RC).  Paragraph 8-2d states that a SSG must be a graduate of the Basic NCO Course Active Army (BNCOC-AC), resident or nonresident course, or BNCOC – Reserve Component (BNCOC-RC).  Paragraph 8-3 states that soldiers serving on AGR status who have not completed the required NCOES course for the appropriate grade prior to entry on active duty must complete the Active Army NCOES course.  Paragraph 8-7 states that a soldier on AGR status who is not credited with, or enrolled in, PLDC and is conditionally promoted to SGT will be scheduled for attendance as soon as possible.

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.  The Board agrees with the Office of Promotions, Reserve Components’ determination that the applicant has provided insufficient supporting documents and is not clear about the alleged error.

2.  The applicant provides no evidence to show he requested enlistment in the USAR as an LPN, 91C due to his civilian acquired skills and that his recruiter misinformed him about possible options.  

3.  It appears that the 671st Float Bridge Company may have been re-located from Portland, OR to Everett, WA.  The applicant provides no documents pertaining to his request for an AGR assignment; therefore, the Board cannot determine if he specifically requested assignment to Portland, OR, or to the 671st Float Bridge Company or if his being voluntarily ordered to active duty in an AGR status was contingent upon assignment to Portland, OR.  The Board regrets that he almost closed on a house in Portland, OR before discovering his assignment was changed to Everett, WA, causing him a financial hardship; however, the needs of the Army always have priority and occasionally interfere with an individual’s personal plans.

3.  There is no available evidence to show when the applicant was promoted to SGT or whether he was promoted to SGT conditional upon his completing PLDC (required for promotion to SGT).  It appears he was scheduled for PLDC but his class was cancelled for reasons outside his control.  The Board regrets he may have been given erroneous information concerning the acceptability of his Air Force PLDC; however, an NCO does have some responsibility for his own career and it is clear in the applicable regulation that PLDC is required for promotion to SGT. 

4.  The Board notes that action on the applicant’s QMP appeal has not yet been taken.

5.  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

__fne___  __le____  __tl____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063421	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020328	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.