RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           2 December 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003086046

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N, Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Patrick H. McGann		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).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests that his Date Of Rank (DOR) to the pay grade E-6 be corrected to his original DOR for that grade.  He also requests that he either be promoted to pay grade E-7 or that he be reinstated in his former rank of Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2).

2.  The applicant states that he should have been immediately considered for promotion to pay grade E-7 when he reverted to his enlisted grade.  That didn’t happen because he was erroneously given a DOR to pay grade E-6 of the date of his discharge as an officer.

3.  The applicant provides excerpts from his military records, which include documents showing:

	- that he was twice not selected for promotion to the rank of CW3, 

	- that he was to be discharged due to his failure to be selected for promotion; 

	- that he invoked his statutory right to reenlist at his former enlisted rank; and 

	- that an error was made by the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) (now Human Resource Command, Alexandria) in not specifying that his DOR to his enlisted rank would be his original DOR.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 November 1983.  He was awarded the military occupational specialties of Patriot Systems Mechanic and Hawk Radar Repairer.  He was promoted to pay grade E-6 on 1 March 1989.

2.  On 4 February 1992, the applicant was honorably discharged due to his appointment as a Army Reserve warrant officer on active duty.

3.  On 4 October 1999, the applicant was notified by PERSCOM that he had not been selected for promotion to CW3, and that he would be separated on 1 March 2000 with entitlement to separation pay.

4.  On 8 February 2000, the PERSCOM e-mailed authorization for the applicant to invoke his statutory right to reenlist in his former enlisted grade of E-6.  The PERSCOM e-mail did not specify the DOR the applicant was to be assigned.
5.  On 1 March 2000, the applicant was honorably discharged from his status as a warrant officer due to his reenlistment in the Regular Army.

6.  In an undated memorandum, the applicant’s higher headquarters informed him that because the PERSCOM did not assign him a DOR when he reenlisted, he was assigned a DOR effective the date he reverted to his enlisted status.  The applicant was informed that the higher headquarters did not have the authority to correct his DOR, and recommended that he apply to this Board.

7.  A Reserve of the Army officer with prior Regular Army enlisted service is entitled to reenlist in the Regular Army per Title10, US Code, Section 3258.  The DOR assigned to an officer who reenlists under this statute is the date preceding the reenlistment date by a period equal to the length of time previously served on active duty in the same or higher grade than that in which enlisted.

8.  In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the PERSCOM.  The PERSCOM recommended that the applicant’s DOR be adjusted to 1 March 1989.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant served on active duty in pay grade E-6 or higher from the date he was promoted to that grade on 1 March 1989.

2.  As such, the applicant was entitled to a DOR of 1 March 1989 when he reenlisted in pay grade E-6 on 2 March 2000.

3.  If the applicant had been given the proper DOR, he would have been eligible for promotion consideration to pay grade E-7 immediately following his reenlistment.  As such, it would only be fair and equitable to have him considered by an Enlisted Standby Advisory Board (ESAB) for promotion to pay grade E-7 under the criteria used for calendar year (CY) 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003.

4.  If the applicant is selected for promotion to pay grade E-7, it would only be fair and equitable to grant him an effective date of promotion and DOR as the date he would have been promoted if he had been properly considered by the promotion board in question.
BOARD VOTE:

___phm_  ____mhm   ____fne_  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

	a.  showing that his DOR to pay grade E-6 was established as 1 March 1989 when he reenlisted on 2 March 2000;

	b.  considering him for promotion to pay grade E-7 under CY 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 criteria; and either

		(1)  giving him the DOR and effective date of promotion that he would have received if he had been selected for promotion by the regular promotion board under which criteria was used in his selection for promotion; or

		(2)  notifying him that he was not selected for promotion.

		_________Fred N. Eichorn_____________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086046	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
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.	112.02	
2.	131.03	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.