MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           19 January 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075781

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 she be paid an enlistment bonus.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she was told by her recruiter that she would receive an enlistment bonus when she completed her initial entry training.  However, she never received that bonus.

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

She enlisted in the Army Reserve with no prior service on 27 January 1998.  In conjunction with that enlistment she completed a bonus addendum for $3,000.00 and a Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) addendum for $10,000.00.  She completed basic combat training and, on 4 April 1999, she was given an uncharacterized discharge.

On 21 June 2001, the applicant enlisted in the USAR once again.  In conjunction with that enlistment she completed a $10,000.00 SLRP addendum.  She did not complete a bonus addendum.  The various forms which should have mentioned a bonus if she were executing a bonus addendum did not mention a bonus, with the notable exception of her DA Form 3540-R, Certificate and Acknowledgement of U.S. Army Reserve Service Requirements and Methods of Fulfillment.  In that form the applicant initialed the block which stated that a non-prior service bonus addendum was attached to her enlistment contract.  

However, upon closer examination it appears that the applicant’s recruiter “X’ed” two items on this form for the applicant to initial – the item showing that an SLRP addendum was attached to the enlistment contract, and the item showing that an addendum to her DA Form 3540-R was also attached to her enlistment contract.  This addendum informed the applicant that she was to be trained as a general construction equipment operator, specified the dates she was to start and complete her training, and reiterated that she was eligible for the Montgomery GI Bill.  However, the applicant did not initial those items.  She initialed the block indicating a bonus addendum was attached to her enlistment contract, as previously discussed.  She also initialed the block indicating that an Alternate Training Program addendum was attached to her enlistment contract.

On 14 December 2001, the applicant’s commander submitted a request to pay the applicant her bonus as an exception to policy.  Her commander’s stated reason for the request was that the applicant initialed her DA Form 3540-R in the block indicating a bonus addendum was attached to her enlistment contract.

On 28 May 2002, the applicant’s request was disapproved by the 90th Regional Support Command (RSC).  In the disapproval it was stated that the applicant did not meet the eligibility requirements for either a prior service or non-prior service enlistment bonus.  The 90th RSC opined that a bonus addendum was not completed because the applicant wasn’t eligible for a bonus.  The 90th RSC also points out that the applicant mistakenly initialed the wrong blocks on her 
DA Form 3540-R.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant was not entitled to a bonus because she was considered prior service due to her earlier enlistment and discharge from the USAR.

2.  The applicant has not submitted any statements from her recruiters which would support her contention that she was promised a bonus.

3.  All of the documents in the applicant’s enlistment packet indicate she was not promised a bonus.  The only form which mentions a bonus is the applicant’s DA Form 3540-R.  However, it is apparent that the applicant initialed the wrong blocks on this form.  The applicant did not require basic combat training, so there would be no purpose to have her complete an Alternate Training Program enlistment addendum, which is necessary when a reservist must attend basic combat training during one year, and advanced (skill) training the following year.

4.  Since the applicant was not entitled to a bonus and has not submitted any argument or evidence which would suggest she was falsely promised a bonus, there is no basis for granting her 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

___hbo__  ___sk ___  ____rvo _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075781 	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20021219	
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.	128.05	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.