PROCEEDINGS    

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           12 December 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002077542

	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. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Roger W. Able		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		Member	
	Mr. Bernard P. Ingold   		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 his enlistment contract be reduced by 17 weeks.

3.  The applicant states that he signed an enlistment contract for a cash bonus and ranger training.  He was later informed that rules prohibited having both incentives.  He chose the cash bonus and the ranger option was dropped.  However, the ranger option had required an extension of 17 weeks on his contract that now should be removed.  

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 May 2000 for a period of 4 years and 17 weeks; for training in career management field 11 (infantry), under Program 9B (ranger training) and 9C (loan repayment program).  In addition, he enlisted for a cash bonus, the Montgomery GI Bill, and Army College Fund educational incentives.

5.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), Chief, Retention Management Division.  PERSCOM advised that a review of the applicant's records indicated that he enlisted for ranger training, cash bonus and the loan repayment program. The applicant was not qualified for cash bonus in conjunction with ranger training and was removed from scheduled ranger training upon arrival at the reception station.  His contract was erroneous due to a guidance counselor error.  PERSCOM recommended approval of the applicant’s request and that his expiration term of service be adjusted to 30 April 2004.

6.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment.  He concurred without comment.

7.  Army Regulation 601-210, Table 9-3 (12) provides the standards and requirements for enlistment in Program 9-B.  The table provides no instruction to extend an enlistment contract by 17 weeks for those electing the ranger training option.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant enlisted for an additional 17-week period of service with the belief that he was eligible for both a cash bonus and ranger training.  The ranger training option was later dropped but not the related 17-week service requirement.  The applicant's request is fully supported by the evidence of record and the PERSCOM’s advisory opinion.  Moreover, since the 17-week additional training requirement was never mandated by regulation in the first place, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant's expiration term of service to 30 April 2004, as recommended by the PERSCOM.

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 by showing that the applicant's expiration term of service is 30 April 2004.

BOARD VOTE:  

___rwa__  ____bpi  ___kyf____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_________Roger W. Able_________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077542	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20021212	
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. 112.03		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.