IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 November 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003846 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests correction of his record to show he is authorized a reenlistment/extension bonus (REB) in the amount of $10,000.00. 2. The applicant states: a. He extended his contract on 24 June 2011 with the understanding that a bonus would be requested. b. The bonus addendum was requested by the Administrative Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) after the reenlistment date and the bonus addendum was generated a few days later showing military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman), which was not his MOS. c. He qualified in MOS 88M (Motor Transport Operator) on 31 May 2008 but the personnel action request to award the MOS was never requested by the previous Administrative NCO, which is the reason for the pen and ink corrections on the bonus addendum. d. A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) was submitted with his DA Form 4836 (Oath of Extension of Enlistment or Reenlistment) to correct an administrative error because the incorrect authority and reason for his extension were annotated on the DA Form 4836. e. The Administrative NCO was recently assigned the duties and was not properly informed of the procedures to generate such documents. f. Administrative errors occurred during the preparation of the documents but a request was submitted to correct the errors. The administrative errors should not be held against him and his bonus should be approved. 3. The applicant provides: * DA Form 4836 * DA Form 4187 * DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) * Annex R to DA Form 4836 (Reenlistment/Extension Decentralized State Incentive Pilot Program (DSIPP) Addendum Army National Guard (ARNG) of the U.S.) * two DA Forms 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) * orders awarding MOS with amendment * DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. After serving in the U.S. Marine Corps, the applicant enlisted in the Florida Army National Guard (FLARNG) on 12 July 2004. He reenlisted on 24 June 2006 for a period of 6 years. 2. Two DA Forms 1059 show he successfully completed phase 1 of the MOS 88M course on 18 May 2007 and phase 2 on 31 May 2008. 3. On 24 June 2011, he extended his 6-year term of service for an additional 6 years. The DA Form 4836 shows in block 8 (Authority and Reason for this Extension) Table 1, Rule A (National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management)). 4. Annex R to his DA Form 4836 shows he was authorized an REB in the amount of $10,000.00. The form was signed by a Service Representative and by the enlisting/reenlisting official, a commissioned officer. A Bonus Control Number (BCN) is listed at the top of each page of this form. The form also shows the applicant placed his initials next to the following statement: I am duty MOS qualified for the position for which I am reenlisting/extending and I hold the rank and grade commensurate with the vacancy I am extending/reenlisting for. I am reenlisting/extending into the ARNG MOS of 11B (Infantryman). 5. The entry that reads "11B" on the DA Form 4836 was subsequently lined-through and a pen and ink correction was entered to read "88M." 6. FLARNG Orders 180-001, dated 29 June 2011, awarded the applicant MOS 88M as his primary MOS effective 29 June 2011. These orders were amended on 23 February 2015 to show the effective date as 31 May 2008, the date he completed phase 2 of the MOS 88M course. 7. The applicant's unit personnel office submitted a DA Form 4187 on or around 24 January 2013 correcting his DA Form 4836 to show the reason and authority for the extension as "Table 1, Rule B (Soldier Qualified for Bonus), Regulation: National Guard Bureau (NGB)-ARH Policy Memorandum Number 09-026, dated 13 August 2009." 8. On 24 July 2013, the NGB approved a request for an exception to policy (ETP) for the applicant to retain the $10,000.00 REB. The NGB noted the following: a. The applicant's contract/bonus addendum has unauthorized pen and ink changes which violates ARNG DSIPP 29 March 11-30 September 2011 (Policy Number 11-02). The pen and ink changes were to annotate the correct MOS 88M on the addendum. b. A review of the request for a BCN supports an incentive being offered at the time of the extension. c. The applicant accepted an incentive offer in good faith and has otherwise fulfilled the obligations under the contract as of the day of the ETP request. Therefore, withholding payment of this incentive would be against equity and good conscience and contrary to the best interest of the Army. 9. On 20 December 2013, the NGB conducted a second review of the ETP request pertaining to the applicant's REB. After the second review, the NGB denied the ETP request and directed the State Incentive Manager to terminate the incentive without recoupment. The NGB noted the following: a. The applicant's contract/bonus addendum has unauthorized pen and ink changes which violates ARNG DSIPP 29 March 11-30 September 2011 (Policy Number 11-02). The pen and ink changes were to annotate the correct MOS 88M on the addendum. b. The applicant's BCN was requested after the date of reenlistment/ extension which violates ARNG DSIPP 29 March 11-30 September 2011 (Policy Number 11-02). In addition, an improper rule was annotated on the extension documents which does not support an incentive having being offered in connection with this extension. c. The applicant may file a claim with the Army Board for Correction of Military Records if there is a belief that an error or injustice exists. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The evidence of record clearly shows the applicant entered into a contract, in good faith, with the understanding he was authorized and would receive an REB in the amount of $10,000.00. 2. The evidence further shows the NGB directed the termination of the bonus without recoupment based on administrative errors in the extension documents, which appear to be minor errors that were not a result of the applicant's actions. It is also noted the errors identified by the NGB in the ETP denial have been corrected. 3. Although the BCN may have been entered into the appropriate system at a later date, the BCN appears on Annex R to his DA Form 4836, executed by the applicant on 24 June 2011. 4. In view of the foregoing and as a matter of equity, any doubt should be resolved in favor of the applicant. It would be appropriate to correct his records to show an ETP was approved allowing him to retain the REB. BOARD VOTE: ____X____ ___X_____ ___X_____ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army and ARNG records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing an ETP request was approved allowing him to retain the full REB and paying him the REB in accordance with the terms set forth in Annex R to his DA Form 4836. ____________X__________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150003846 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150003846 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1