MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:  20 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999032883

	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. Lee Cates		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz		Member	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		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: That her records be corrected to show an adjusted date of rank (DOR) to her present pay grade.

APPLICANT STATES: That her DOR should be accurately reflected as             29 August 1997.  She contends her DOR should be adjusted to account for the time she spent in grade in the Army Reserve (USAR).  She provides copies of her Leave and Earning Statement’s, DD Form 214’s, correspondence pertaining to her return to Regular Army (RA) status, an extract from Army Regulation (AR) 600-20 (RA and USAR Enlistment Program) and 601-210 (Army Command Policy)(obsolete).

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

During the period 25 April to 6 June 1981, she served in the USAR Delayed Enlistment Program.

On 7 June 1981, she enlisted in the RA.  She completed her required training and was awarded MOS 91S (Environmental Health Specialist).  She was promoted to pay grade E-5, effective 1 November 1986.

On 24 February 1988, she was honorably separated under AR 635-200, chapter 4, based on the expiration of her term of service.  Her DD Form 214 indicates she had 6 years, 8 months and 16 days of creditable service.

During the period February 1988 to November 1991, she served in the USAR.

During the period November 1991 to November 1993, she served in the Army National Guard.

During the period November 1993 to March 1998, she served in the USAR.  On 29 August 1997, she was promoted to sergeant first class, pay grade E-7.

On 10 March 1998, after obtaining a grade determination from the Commanding General, Personnel Command (PERSCOM), she reenlisted in the RA for a period of 3 years, in pay grade E-6, with a DOR of 10 March 1998.

On 5 April 2000, the Assistant Army Recruiting Policy Noncommissioned Officer, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel (DCSPER) opined that she was authorized rank only for reenlistment and recommended denial of her request.

On 5 April 2000, the DCSPER opinion was furnished to the applicant for her acknowledgement/rebuttal.  The applicant elected not to respond.

Army Regulation 601-210 indicates, in pertinent part, that applicants last separated from any Component or is a current member of a Reserve Component in grade E-7 through E-9 will have their enlistment grade and eligibility determined by the Commanding General, PERSCOM.  Further, guidance counselors will advise applicants that the DOR will be reviewed at the first duty station or the Recruiting Battalion, for correct entry.

Army Regulation 600-20 indicates, in pertinent part, that the DOR of a person enlisting in the RA from the USAR will be the date of enlistment.

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.  The evidence of record shows the date of enlistment for the individual concerned was 10 March 1998 and her DOR was established accordingly.

2.  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 this requirement.

3.  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

___vc___  ___el___  ___ja____ DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999032887	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000620	
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         1.131	DOR to E6	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.