PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            12 DECEMBER 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002071526

	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. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Roger W. Able		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		Member	
	Mr. Bernard P. Ingold		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 that her records be corrected to show that she was promoted to sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 26 July 2001. 

3.  The applicant states that an exception to policy for her to be promoted [under the provisions of the Army Civilian Acquired Skill Program (ACASP)] was first submitted in September 2001.  The request was delayed for three months, and a second request was submitted in December 2001.  Because of the delays, the request was not processed within the required six months.  Consequently, she was not promoted [when she should have been].  She met the training requirements for promotion.  

4.  The applicant’s military records show that she enlisted in the Army for four years on 21 March 2001 in pay grade E-4 under the provisions of the ACASP.  She enlisted as a practical nurse, MOS (military occupational specialty) 91C.  She stated that she understood that enlistment under that program authorized her to be advanced in grade based upon her demonstrated skill, proficiency, and conduct as a soldier.  She indicated that she would be advanced to pay grade   E-5 in accordance with Army Regulation 601-210 provided she received a recommendation from her commander.  She stated that she understood that promotion was not automatic but depended upon her demonstration of proficiency, skill, and conduct.

5.  On 24 May 2001 orders were published assigning her from Fort Jackson, South Carolina, to the Army Medical Department Activity (MEDDAC) at Fort Stewart, Georgia, with a reporting date of 1 June 2001.    

6.  In a 21 December 2001 memorandum to the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) the MEDDAC commander at Fort Stewart recommended that the applicant be promoted to sergeant effective on 26 July 2001 as an exception to policy.  He stated that the applicant completed her proficiency training on 26 July 2001.  In a 22 February 2002 memorandum to PERSCOM the applicant’s company commander made the same recommendation.  There is no information concerning a response to either request; however, on 18 March 2002 the applicant’s support battalion commander informed the MEDDAC commander that the applicant had to submit the promotion request to this Board.  

7.  Orders published on 30 April 2002 show that the applicant was promoted to sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 16 October 2001.

8.  On 8 October 2002 the applicant was honorably discharged from the Army because of pregnancy. 

9.  Army Regulation 601-210, chapter 7, provides policy and guidance for the implementation of the ACASP.  The ACASP attracts and uses persons with civilian acquired skills required by the Army.  Persons qualified for the ACASP may be given an advance in grade upon enlistment and may be entitled to accelerated promotion based on the skill level held and demonstrated duty performance.  Promotion to the accelerated grade and award of the MOS authorized by the enlistment agreement will be made either with the approval of the unit commander or by the training commander for active Army personnel, after successful completion of all training required by the enlistment program selected.  Table 7-1 lists the skills and criteria authorized for the ACASP, and states that to qualify for MOS 91C20 as a practical nurse with later appointment to pay grade E-5 a soldier must have successfully completed a State-approved course in practical, registered, or vocational nursing; must have successfully passed the National Council of State Boards of Nursing Licensure Examination and possess current state license as a practical or vocational nurse; and must have completed a specified period of proficiency training as a prerequisite for award of the MOS, and be able to perform the duty requirements of the MOS before award of the MOS and promotion to an accelerated pay grade.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 provides for enlisted promotions and states in pertinent part that soldiers enlisted into the Army under ACASP in accordance with Army Regulation 601-210 will be promoted under this paragraph              [AR 600-8-19, paragraph 3-7].  The effective date and date of rank will be the date all requirements are met.

11.  In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the PERSCOM.  That command indicated that there was no document to substantiate that the promotion authority submitted a promotion request on          1 September 2001; and that a staff action processed on 15 April 2002 indicated that the promotion authority determined that she be promoted on 16 October 2001.  The PERSCOM recommended that her request be denied.  The applicant was furnished a copy of the advisory opinion on 4 June 2002 for her information and possible rebuttal.  She failed to respond. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Both the applicant’s company commander and MEDDAC commander recommended that the applicant be promoted to sergeant effective on 26 July 2001, the date that she completed the required proficiency training.  The Board recognizes that both recommendations were more than likely received later than the 6 month window required by PERSCOM.  Nonetheless, the requests for an exception to that policy are not unreasonable.  The applicant completed the required training.  Any delay in recommending her for promotion does not appear to be her fault. 

2.  Therefore, and notwithstanding the advisory opinion, the applicant’s records should be corrected to show that she was promoted to sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 26 July 2001.  She should receive all due pay and allowances in that grade effective on 26 July 2001 through her discharge date of 8 October 2002.

3.  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 was promoted to Sergeant, pay grade E-5, effective and with a date of rank of 26 July 2001, and that she receive all due pay and allowances in that grade effective on 26 July 2001 through her discharge date of 8 October 2002. 

BOARD VOTE:  

__RWA__  __KYF_ _  __BPI    _  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_____Roger W. Able______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002071526	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20021212	
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.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.