PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           27 June 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002071580

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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 the effective date of her promotion to and her date of rank (DOR) to sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5) be changed from 1 march 2002 to 5 July 2001, and that she be provided all back pay and allowances due as a result. 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, her job proficiency was certified by a nursing instructor in a memorandum, dated 3 July 2001, with a recommendation that she be promoted effective 5 July 2001, in accordance with Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 7-11.  She states that the original recommendation for promotion dated 3 July 2001 was forwarded to the Personnel Service Battalion (PSB) until some 7 months later.  In support of her application, she submits the following documents: 3 July 2001, memorandum recommending award of accelerated promotion; 21 February 2002, memorandum recommending award MOS 91WM6 (Health Care Specialist) with an additional skill identifier (ASI) of M6 (Practical Nurse) and accelerated promotion; 25 February 2002, memorandum recommending award of MOS 91WM6 and accelerated promotion; A Civilian Acquired Skills Program (ACASP) enlistment option (DA Form 3286-68); enlistment contract (DD Form 4/1,2,3; certificate of nurse training, dated 14 May 1999; vocational nursing license, State of Texas; and SGT/E-5 promotion orders.

4.  On 22 December 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Army for a period of 
4 years, in the rank of specialist/E-4, with the following options: US Army Station of Choice Enlistment Option; an incentive cash bonus of $13,000.00; and the Civilian Acquired Skills Enlistment Program, which authorized her advancement to the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5, based on her civilian acquired skills in MOS 91 as Practical Nurse, upon completion of a prescribed course and the recommendation of her commander.  She is currently serving on active duty at Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC), Fort Sam Houston, Texas.

5.  On 3 July 2001, an instructor of the Nursing Education Service, BAMC, recommended that the applicant be awarded MOS 91C based on her successful completion of 8 weeks of proficiency training and that she be granted an  accelerated promotion to SGT/E-5 in accordance with paragraph 7-11, Army Regulation 601-210, the ACASP enlistment option.

6.  On 21 February 2002, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that the applicant be awarded MOS 91WM6 and receive her accelerated promotion to  SGT/E-5 with an effective date of 1 March 2002.  On 25 February 2002, the applicant’s field grade level commander also made this same recommendation. 

7.  On 5 March 2002, Orders Number 064-601 was published by Headquarters, US Army Medical Center and School and Fort Sam Houston, Fort Sam Houston. These orders authorized the applicant’s promotion to rank of SGT/ E-5 effective 
1 March 2002.

8.  In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) Retention Management Division.  It opined that the applicant enlisted under the ACASP, table 7-1, MOS 91W/M6. Under the provisions of Army Regulations 601-210, paragraph 7-1, persons qualified for the ASCAP are given an advance grade upon enlistment and successful completion of all prescribed training listed in Table 7-2 or 7-3, individual may be promoted to accelerated grade authorized by table 7-1 (E-5).  The advisory opinion noted that the applicant had completed the required training on 3 July 2001, and had received a recommendation for accelerated promotion to SGT/E-5, with an effective date of 5 July 2001.  Therefore, PERSCOM officials recommended that the applicant’s request to have her promotion effective date and DOR to SGT/E-5 to 5 July 2001 be approved.  On 9 May 2002, a copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for comment.  To date she has failed to respond acknowledgement/rebuttal. 

9.  Army Regulation 601- 210, prescribes eligibility criteria governing the enlistment of persons, with or without prior service (PS), into the Regular Army (RA) and the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR).  Chapter 7 provides policy and guidance for implementing the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program (ACASP).  It states, in pertinent part, that persons qualified for the ACASP may be given an advancement in grade upon enlistment in the skill in which they hold proficiency. Advancement to the grade identified is authorized based on the successful completion of required proficiency training, skill level held, and demonstrated duty performance.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that she should have been promoted to SGT/E-5, effective 5 July 200, based on her completing the prescribed training, being recommended for the applicable MOS, and for accelerated promotion by schools officials, and finds this claim has merit.

2.   The evidence of records confirms the applicant was eligible for an accelerated promotion to SGT with an effective date and DOR of 5 July 2001, based on the recommendation of schools officials once she completed the prescribed proficiency training in the MOS indicated in her ASCAP enlistment contract option statement.  The applicant’s eligibility based on her completing ASCAP is further confirmed by the recommendation contained in the PERSCOM advisory opinion provided for this case.   
3.  Based on the facts of this case, the Board concludes that the applicant was unjustly denied a promotion to which she was entitled, based on completing the prerequisites established for her accelerated promotion in her enlistment contract.  Therefore, the Board concurs with the advisory opinion from PERSCOM and finds that it would be appropriate to adjust the applicant’s promotion to SGT/E-5, with a promotion effective date and DOR of 5 July 2001, and to provide her all back pay and allowances due as a result.

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 the individual concerned was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5, effective 5 July 2001, with a DOR of 5 July 2001; and by providing her all back pay and allowances due a result.

BOARD VOTE:  

__INW__  __KAN__  __RTD___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Irene N. Wheelwright ___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002071580	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/06/27	
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.	131.0400	
2.	131.0500	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.