MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            01 JULY 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003083430

	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	
	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		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:  The applicant requests that her records be corrected to show that she was promoted to sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 27 June 1997.

APPLICANT STATES:  She should have been promoted to pay grade E-5 on     27 June 1997 because she enlisted under the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program (CASP).  Her contract stated that she was to be promoted to pay    grade E-5. 

In support of her request, the applicant submits a 12 August 2002 memorandum from the Commanding Officer of the 349th General Hospital, her Reserve unit in Stanton, California.  That officer stated that her contract under the CASP allowed her to enlist with her civilian skills.  She was required to complete basic training, but not advanced training because she had the necessary skills to perform in her specialty.  She was not promoted while assigned to the 4211th Army Hospital.  A proficiency test was not given her, but this was not her fault.  She was assigned to the 349th on 24 April 2000.  The unit recommended her for promotion; however, the recommendation was lost.  She was finally promoted on 25 April 2002.  She signed a contract in good faith.  The terms of her contract were not fulfilled, through no fault of her own.  

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

The applicant had prior service in the Air Force prior to her enlistment in the Army Reserve for 6 years in pay grade E-4 on 27 June 1997.  

Her Statement of Enlistment – United States Army/Army Reserve Civilian Acquired Skills Enlistment Program (DA Form 3286-68) indicates that she understood that her civilian acquired skill as a practical nurse (MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) 91C – Practical Nurse), was being recognized for enlistment.  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.  She stated that she understood that failure to meet the specific conditions list in her primary enlistment program could result in denial of her promotion.   

A copy of a certificate provided with her application shows that she was licensed as a practical nurse by the Missouri State Board of Nursing, and that her license was valid through 31 May 2004.  

Subsequent to her enlistment, she was assigned to the 325th Field Hospital in Independence, Missouri in the duty MOS of 91C20 as a practical nurse.  There is no other information about her while she was assigned to that unit.  In March 1998 she was assigned to the 4211th Army Hospital in San Diego, California as a practical nurse.  On 8 April 1999 she was assigned to the Army Reserve Control Group at St. Louis because of her unsatisfactory participation in unit training assemblies.  On 4 May 2000 the applicant was assigned from the Army Reserve Control Group to her present unit, the 349th General Hospital.

On 17 June 2002 the 63d Regional Support Command, the applicant's major Reserve command, published an order awarding the applicant the primary MOS (PMOS) of 91C20, and at the same time withdrawing the PMOS of 00D10, effective 25 April 2002.  MOS 00D10 is a code used to identify approved special duty assignment positions in organization authorization documents, and to report the duty MOS for soldiers assigned to these positions.  The special instructions in that order indicated that the applicant was ineligible to change PMOS until     April 2003.   

On 9 July 2002 the 63d RSC promoted the applicant to sergeant, MOS 91C20,  effective 18 June 2002.  Her PMOS of  00D10 was withdrawn.  That order was amended on 9 July 2002 to show an effective date of promotion of 25 April 2002 with a promotion in the primary MOS of 91W20, with no withdrawal of any other MOS.

In a 15 August 2002 memorandum to the 63d RSC, the commander of the 349th stated that he concurred with the request for contractual promotion of the applicant.

A 6 September 2002 personnel qualification record shows that she was assigned to the 349th as a 91W20 Y2 (Health Care Specialist – in training).  A                  20 September 2002 Unit Manning Report shows her assignment as a 91W20 Y2 effective on 26 November 2001.  The report shows the position title, however, as a practical nurse, MOS 91W20M6.  

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.  Soldiers authorized to be promoted to E-5 under the ACASP, table 7-1, are exempt from the PLDC completion requirement.  However, soldiers must be scheduled and complete PLDC as soon as possible.  While promotion may be made, this does not exempt soldier from attending PLDC for all other purposes.  

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.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, to show that either the 325th or the 4211th unit commander considered the applicant qualified for the accelerated promotion to sergeant in MOS 91C20.  There is no evidence of any proficiency training completed, nor any evidence that she was recommended for promotion by her prior unit commanders.  The information concerning her previous troop program unit assignments is sparse.  Consequently, and notwithstanding the recommendation made by her current hospital commander, there is insufficient evidence to grant the applicant's request.    

2.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.   

3.  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.

4.  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

__TSK __  __MHM__  __KYF __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003083430	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030701	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.