PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  4 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030162

	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. Paul A. Petty		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Ms. Carol J. Suiter		Member	
	Mr. James P. Stueve		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 she receive the $2500 enlistment bonus that her recruiter promised her in March 1993 for enlisting in the Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 88M, Motor Transport Operator (truck driver).

3.  The applicant states that she was promised a $2500 signing bonus for transportation MOS 88M in March 1993 when she talked with her recruiter.  When the recruiter took her to the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS), he assured her everything was in order and she proceeded to enlist.  She trusted her recruiter and the people at the MEPS that all her paperwork was in the proper order.  Unbeknownst to her, she did not know that the bonus payment action involved completely separate paperwork and through vigorous searching, she recently found this to be the case.  She now believes her recruiter fraudulently informed her and did not complete his job.  She still believes that she is due the bonus.  She has no physical evidence because this problem was caused by her recruiter’s failure to complete the proper paper work and keep her correctly and properly informed.  It was only recently that the unit administrator of her reserve unit was able to attain her microfiche of her original contract to determine that the proper paperwork was not there.  Until this point, they thought that it had just been overlooked or lost in the shuffle.  She feels that because it was promised to her and she was always told that she would receive it, that corrective action should be taken.

4.  Until the Fall of 1998, the previous unit administrator had always told her that she was looking into the problem.  It was in the Fall of 1998 that a representative from the Inspector General’s office came to her unit to speak with the unit members and discuss any questions they had.  It was only then that she was given the correct information and proper instruction on what she could do to solve the problem.  She believes she has been misled by the Army for 6 years.  She loves the Army with all her heart but the individuals that misled her were wrong.  All she asks is that she be provided the $2500 signing bonus that she was rightfully entitled to in March 1993.  If she would have known that she would never see the money, she would have chosen a different MOS.  One of the main reasons she chose to be an 88M was because of the bonus which she wanted to use to pay for school.  Otherwise, she would have chosen a different military career that could have also benefited her civilian employment and civilian life.

5.  The applicant’s military records show that she enlisted in the Army Reserves on 1 April 1993 as an E-1 for an 8 year obligation.  Her enlistment contract DD Form 1966/2 does show that she enlisted for the GI Bill and for the MOS 88M in a transportation company.  She has remained in that same transportation company to the present.  She has also advanced to the grade of E-5.

6.  The MOS 88M was a bonus MOS for enlistment in the Army National Guard in March 1993 but not for enlistment in the USAR.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant enlisted for the MOS 88M (truck driver) to obtain an enlistment bonus of $2,500 she was led to believe by the recruiter was being offered.  The applicant stated that if she had not been offered an enlistment bonus for 88M, she would have sought a MOS that would have been more suited to her interests and more applicable in her civilian life.  As an exception, she should be paid this enlistment bonus.

2.  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 for the individual concerned as an exception by paying her a lump sum enlistment bonus of $2,500.

BOARD VOTE:  

__LS___  __CS____  __JS___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___ Luther L. Santiful ____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030162	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000504	
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         1.112.11	Bonus	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.