PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            20 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031282

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. William T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger Able		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 she be promoted to the pay grade of E-5 effective 12 March 1998 with entitlement to all back pay and allowances.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that she enlisted under the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program (ACASP) as a practical nurse in military occupational specialty (MOS) 91C and upon completion of her training her commander recommended her for promotion to the pay grade of E-5 effective 12 March 1998. However, because her enlistment contract (DA Form 3286-68) incorrectly indicates that she was to be advanced only to the pay grade of E-4, she was denied her promotion.  She further states that Army Regulation 601-210 clearly states that individuals who enlist under the ACASP for MOS 91C will be advanced to the pay grade of E-5 when all prerequisites are met and they are recommended by their commander.  In support of her application she submits a copy of her enlistment contract, the commander’s recommendation for promotion, her diploma indicating her completion of training at a civilian college for practical nursing, her license as a practical nurse, and her completion of proficiency training by the Army.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that she enlisted in the pay grade of E-4 on 12 September 1997 for a period of 4 years under the ACASP for MOS 91C and payment of a $6,000 cash enlistment bonus.  At the time of her enlistment her contract (DA Form 3286-68) was prepared to indicate that she would be advanced to the pay grade of E-4 provided she received a recommendation from her commander and completed the required proficiency training.

5.  On 12 August 1999 the applicant’s commander recommended that she be promoted to the pay grade of E-5 effective 12 March 1998 under the ACASP.

6.  In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (ODCSPER) Recruiting Policy Branch which opined, in effect, that the applicant should have been enlisted with the commitment to be promoted to the pay grade of E-5 and recommended that her request be approved for promotion to the pay grade of E-5 effective 12 March 1998 with entitlement to all back pay and allowances.  The opinion was provided to the applicant who concurred with the ODCSPER opinion.

7.  Army Regulation 601-210 serves as the authority for enlistment in the Regular Army and provides the qualifications for enlistment.  It states, in pertinent part, that personnel who enlist in the ACASP in MOS 91C will be enlisted in the pay grade of E-4 with subsequent promotion to the pay grade of E-5 provided they meet the established requirements of the regulation.  Personnel who fail to meet the prerequisites will be reclassified to another MOS.  There are no provisions for entry into MOS 91C in a lower grade.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Inasmuch as the applicable regulations require that personnel who enlist under the ACASP in MOS 91C must enlist in the pay grade of E-4 with a commitment for promotion to the pay grade of E-5 upon successful completion of the established requirements, it is apparent that an administrative error at the time of enlistment resulted in the wrong pay grade of E-4 being entered on her enlistment contract (DA Form 3286-68) instead of the pay grade of E-5.

2.  Consequently, she has been unjustly denied promotion to the pay grade of   E-5 on 12 March 1998; a benefit she otherwise would have received had the administrative error not occurred.

3.  Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to amend her enlistment contract to reflect that she could be promoted to the pay grade of E-5 and by promoting her to the pay grade of E-5 effective 12 March 1998 with entitlement to all back pay and allowances.

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 amending the enlistment contract (DA Form 3286-68) in paragraph 3 pertaining to the individual concerned to reflect E-5 instead of E-4 and by promoting her to the pay grade of E-5 effective 12 March 1998 with entitlement to all back pay and allowances.

BOARD VOTE:  

___wtm __  __ra____  __mvt___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Walter T. Morrison____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031282	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/04/20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  310	131.0000/PROMOTION	
2.  222	112.0000/CORR ENL CONTRACT	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.