ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 1 September 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190005411 APPLICANT REQUESTS: review of enlistment proceedings to determine: * if he should have received a bonus * if he should have received the GI Bill Kicker APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) checklist * Sworn Statement in support of his application, 2 March 2019 * Enlistment Documents, 21 September 2016 * Record of Military Processing, 21 September 2016 * Enlistment Documents, 11 October 2016 * Record of Military Processing, 11 October 2016 * Enlistment Agreement, 11 October 2016 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), 9 June 2017 * Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) Orders, 24 May 2017 * Reservation for MOS Training, 21 September 2016 * Letter to the Board from a Command Sergeant Major (CSM), 6 February 2019 FACTS: 1. The applicant, on his application and sworn statement, states: a. At the time of his enlistment, he was eligible for and ensured an enlistment bonus would be received. He enlisted on 21 September 2016. He was made to go back to the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) to enlist a second time on 11 October 2016. At the time of his original enlistment, he was told he was enlisting for 8 years (6x2) and would be eligible to receive a bonus along with other enlistment benefits. At one of his first Recruit Sustainment Program drills, he was informed that there may have been an enlistment error and that was why he had to go to MEPS twice to enlist. b. He went to MEPS on 21 September 2016 to enlist in the Michigan Army National Guard (ARNG). While he was signing his contract, he was informed he would be receiving a $7,500 bonus along with the GI Bill Kicker for $375 every month while he was in college. c. He signed the contract and was sworn in. Two weeks later, he received a call from his recruiter saying he had to go back to MEPS, which confused him as he had already enlisted. d. He went back to MEPS on 11 October 2016. When he got there, he was told he had to sign another enlistment contract and be sworn in again. He was not sure the reason for the resigning and swearing in. He signed another contract and was sworn in. He received a paper stating he was eligible for a tier five bonus. e. In October 2016, his recruiter told him Michigan was not allowed to enlist more Soldiers in that fiscal year, but still needed Soldiers so they kept enlisting them, and there may have been an error with his enlistment. f. In the months to follow, he did his duties by going to Recruit Sustainment Program and on 21 February 2017, he left for Basic Training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He graduated Basic Training and returned home in July. He reported to the Recruit Sustainment Program for gold phase training. It was there he was alerted that he would no longer receive a bonus or his GI Bill kicker, but he was not given a reason as to why. His recruiter told him he was going to help assess and correct the mistake, but did not follow through. His recruiter told him he sent a letter to a division downstate, but he never heard anything after that. 2. The applicant's service record was void of a bonus addendum and GI Bill Kicker addendum. 3. The applicant provides the following documents for the Board's consideration: a. A DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States), which shows he enlisted in the ARNG on 21 September 2016 for one year. b. A DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing - Armed Forces of the United States), dated 21 September 2016, which shows he understood he was eligible for the GI Bill Kicker and he accepted the GI Bill Kicker. c. A DD Form 4, which shows he enlisted in the ARNG on 11 October 2016 for a period of 7 years and 50 weeks. d. A DD Form 1966, dated 11 October 2016, which shows he understood he was eligible for the GI Bill Kicker and he accepted the GI Bill Kicker. e. An Enlistment/Reenlistment Agreement ARNG, dated 11 October 2016, which shows he was enlisting in the MOS of 12C/Bridge Crewmember and the Montgomery GI Bill Addendum was attached to his enlistment contract. f. A DD Form 214, which shows the applicant had the MOS of 12C/Bridge Crewmember. g. Orders 144-1896, published by United States Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, dated 24 May 2017, which shows he was awarded the MOS of 12C. h. A document entitled Congratulations! A Successful Reservation was Completed for the applicant in the MOS of 12C. Under Incentive Information, it states "Bonus Tier: 5". i. A memorandum for the Board from the applicant's CSM, dated 6 February 2019, which states: (1) He respectfully requests the Board's consideration and assistance with the bonus for the applicant and two other Soldiers. The applicant enlisted in September 2016. They were eligible for and promised incentives which included a $7,500 bonus. On 11 October 2016, they were taken back to MEPS and enlisted a second time so the recruiter could get them credited to his Fiscal Year 2017 Accessions. None of the Soldiers were prior service and none understood the recruiter's purpose and motivation for enlisting them a second time. (2) The incident occurred less than 3 years ago, and all administrative remedies to correct the issue had been exhausted. All three Soldiers dealt with the same recruiter and they were promised he would correct the situation. The recruiter was unable to correct it. One of the Soldiers filed a complaint with the Michigan ARNG Inspector General's (IG) Office without relief. The IG Office could not correct the issue and concluded all three were similar and would have the same outcome in the IG process. (3) This situation was created by the recruiter and cost the three Soldiers over $7,500 each in incentives they were promised. The situation would have been prevented if the three enlistments were handled as enlistments normally are, and not caused to enlist twice, just weeks apart, to enable a recruiter to meet his yearly mission. Request the Board's assistance in correcting the record of the applicant so he can receive the bonus. 4. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained on 4 August 2020, from the Chief, Special Actions Branch National Guard Bureau (NGB). The advisory official recommended disapproval of the applicant's request. The applicant's records show his initial contract was for a term of 1 year. The contract dated two weeks later was for the full term of 8 years. This error in the contract would require the voiding of the original contract and completion of a new contract. The fact that two other Soldiers experienced the same incident shows obvious recruiter impropriety or negligence. Unfortunately, beyond the memorandum and the erroneous contract, there is no additional evidence provided that proves malfeasance on the part of the recruiter. While there is an obvious wrong against the applicant, the request for $7,500 should be denied. Although the applicant would most likely have been eligible for a bonus, the payment of $7,500 without an enlistment addendum supported by the state is not recommended. While it is reasonable to assume the applicant would have received a bonus at the time of enlistment, payment of the lump sum from the Board would not be appropriate. A copy of the complete advisory opinion has been provided to the Board for their review and consideration. 5. The applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion on 10 August 2020, to provide him an opportunity to comment and/or submit a rebuttal. He responded on 24 August 2020, and states: a. He enlisted into the Michigan ARNG on 21 September 2016. While working with his recruiter, he was informed he was eligible for and would be receiving the $7,500 enlistment bonus and the GI Bill Kicker. This was reiterated numerous times during their discussion. While at MEPS, he was again informed he was eligible and would be receiving the two incentives both by his recruiter and the person who processed his enlistment documents. He was even provided a printout showing the reservation for basic training stating the 6 year term or enlistment and the Bonus Tier 5. b. At no point during this initial enlistment was he informed that the State was not allowed anymore enlistments for the fiscal year, and he would only be signing a 1 year enlistment. He was not informed he would have to return a few weeks later, in October, to sign enlistment documents again, for the remainder of the 6 year enlistment term. He had no idea he had not signed for the $7,500 enlistment bonus and the GI Bill Kicker, everyone stated he would be receiving. c. He attempted to have the error or mistake corrected through his recruiter who promised he was looking into it and was going to help assess/correct the mistake not just for him but two other Soldiers that found themselves in the same situation with the same recruiter. d. He's requesting the Board not accept the findings of the NGB Advisory Opinion and that they approve his request. Due to no fault of his own, he did not receive the enlistment incentives he was told he was eligible for and would receive, by more than one person on multiple occasions. At no point was he informed or counseled on the unique situation he found himself in. The advisory opinion even states there is an obvious wrong against him and there was obvious recruiter impropriety or negligence. It also stated it was reasonable to assume he would have received a bonus at the time of his enlistment. The applicant faithfully upheld his enlistment contract for 4 years while awaiting some final outcome in this matter. He remained in good status for the entire period and was never flagged. e. He included a copy of his reservation from the date of his first enlistment on 21 September 2016, which is the only document he received stating the 6 year enlistment term with the bonus tier 5. He also included two memos from respected Noncommissioned Officers within his unit/battalion that are familiar with his situation, along with an order showing his return from an inactive status. At no point was he aware that at the time of his first enlistment he was being placed directly into an inactive status. He could not find any record showing his placement into the inactive status. 6. The applicant provides the following documents with his rebuttal for the Board's consideration: a. His reservation for training, which was previously provided by the applicant. b. A memorandum from his Sergeant First Class, Operations Sergeant, dated 17 August 2020, which states: (1) The applicant received a memo from the ABCMR informing him of a 15 day hold on his application pending the opportunity to submit comments on the advisory opinion from NGB. (2) The advisory opinion from NGB recommended disapproval of the applicant's request. Reviewing the discussion provided in the advisory opinion, he would like to submit comments on behalf of the applicant on why he believes the recommendation should not be adopted by the ABCMR and the applicant's request should be approved. (3) The applicant provided in his ABCMR application an Applicant Copy for a reservation for training. He was not familiar with the system, but it was his understanding it was used at MEPS for reserving the applicant into a paragraph/line in a Unit Identification Code and as a One Station Unit Training seat. In order to do this the applicant's personal information is input along will all finding from MEPS. They system also tracks the applicant's enlistment category and reservation information. (4) The applicant copy clearly states the applicant was reserved for a 6 year term and an incentive under Bonus Tier 5, which was a $7,500 bonus at the time and would have also included the BI Bill Kicker. The applicant, after being provided the applicant copy and after being told repeatedly by his recruiter he was eligible for and would be receiving the two incentives, was given a DD Form 4 that was only for a 1 year period. Having no prior knowledge of this form, or the fact that enlistment addendums are required for the incentives, signs the enlistment forms believing he is singing for a 6 year enlistment and hence the incentives that he was repeatedly told he would be receiving. (5) The applicant was never properly informed he was signing a 1 year enlistment. Due to this fact, he was fully unaware of the true reason he was required to return to MEPS two week later to sign enlistment documents again, this time for 7 years and 50 weeks. The applicant had no idea at the time he signed the first enlistment the Michigan ARNG was currently over strength and could not enlist any more new recruits for the Fiscal Year 2017. Again, he had no idea that enlistment addendums were required for the two incentives he still believed he would be receiving. He had no ideas the Michigan ARNG immediately placed him into an inactive status at the time of his first enlistment in order to bypass the fact they were over strength. At the time he signed the second enlistment, in a new fiscal year, a transfer order was published for the Assignment/Loss reason of "return from inactive status." The applicant was not counseled or properly informed of any of these proceedings. (6) The exact situation also happened to two other Soldiers by the same recruiter, all of whom joined the same unit. All were eligible for and informed they would receive a 6 year enlistment incentive(s). All originally enlisted during the same month, received the applicant copy from the system showing the reservation for a 6 year term and incentive. None were counseled or properly informed the Michigan ARNG was currently over strength, they would be signing a 1 year enlistment, or immediately placed into an inactive status. None were aware of the exact reasoning for having to return to MEPS a few weeks later to sign enlistment documents again. The NGB advisory opinion states, "The fact that two other Soldiers experienced the same incident show obvious recruiter impropriety or negligence." It also states that "...there is an obvious wrong against the applicant...", and "...it is reasonable to assume he would have received a bonus at the time of enlistment..." It is clear the Soldiers were misled and fully unaware of the circumstances in which they were placed, and at no fault of their own. (7) It is his opinion the applicant, and two additional Soldiers, were not fully informed of this situation, had no ideas they were not receiving the incentives that they were eligible for, and were misled either for the benefit of a recruiter or due to the state being over strength at the time. Due to no fault of their own, these Soldiers were wronged. The applicant is still a member of the unit and continues to be a stand out Soldier who has remained in good standing throughout his time in service. He is upholding his commitment to the Michigan ARNG and is seriously considering reenlisting. The author believes it would be fully irresponsible to not correct this and to right the wrong done to the applicant. c. A memorandum from the applicant's CSM, dated 19 August 2020, which states: (1) He is writing in response to the NGB Advisory. He requests the Board's assistance with the bonus correction for the applicant. The disapproval recommendation in the letter from NGB clearly acknowledges "the erroneous contract" and "an obvious wrong against the applicant" but states there is no proof of "malfeasance". Malfeasance is not alleged, the recruiter told the applicant he would receive a bonus. The applicant was eligible for the bonus. The recruiter had the applicant, with about 2 weeks of service, resign contracts on his second trip to MEPS. He did not know he was signing a contract for only one year on his first trip to MEPS and it was not explained to him. The bonus omission was a mistake on the part of the recruiter and he tried to correct it. They believe the recruiter was sincere and attempted to correct it. (2) The incident could have been avoided if the recruiter would have been more diligent. All administrative remedies to correct the issue were exhausted. The recruiter promised he would correct the situation but was unable to. The recruiter tried, and the incident did not involve mal intent, but perhaps inexperience or incompetence. The CSM believes the Board should do the right thing and take care of the applicant by correcting the record and granting the bonus. (3) The situation was created by the recruiter and cost the applicant over $7,500 in incentives promised. The situation would have been prevented if the enlistment was handled as an enlistment normally is and if the applicant had not been required to enlist twice, just weeks apart because the state was over strength or to enable a recruiter to meet his yearly mission. The applicant was a typical 18 year old enlistee who trusted the recruiter had his best interest in mind. Most new Soldiers, himself included, enlisted with one contract. The Board's assistance in correcting the record so the applicant can get his bonus would be greatly appreciated by the CSM and the applicant. d. Orders 286-093, published by State of Michigan Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, dated 12 October 2016, which transfer the applicant from the Recruiting and Retention Battalion, to Bridge Crewmember in his unit. 7. See applicable references below. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting evidence, the Board found that full relief was warranted. The Board considered the review and conclusions of the NGB advising official and the letters from the applicant's NCO leadership. The Board found that the applicant was unjustly denied his enlistment bonus and GI Bill Kicker. The Board found that the applicant completed all the required paperwork and evidence reflects his eligibility for a bonus for a Tier V MOS. The Board agreed that the applicant did everything he was supposed to do and deserves to retain the $7,500.00 bonus and GI Bill Kicker. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that denial of the stated incentives was unjust and a corrrection was appropriate. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 :X :X :X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: 1. Showing the applicant enlisted for 6 years on 21 September 2016 in the MIARNG and is entitled to receive Non-Prior Service Enlistment Bonus for Tier V MOS and the GI Bill Kicker. 2. DFAS paying him appropriate Non-Prior Service Enlistment Bonus in accordance with the aforementioned corrections minus any payments already issued. X 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. REFERENCES: 1. ARNG FY 16 SRIP Policy #16-01 (The ANG Selected Reserve Incentive Programs Policy for Fiscal Year 2016), states: a. The Non-Prior Service Enlistment Bonus amounts were based on a 6 year term and tier level. A Tier Level 5 bonus was for $7,500. b. The MOS of 12C was listed as an authorized enlisted affiliation critical MOS. 2. Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1205.21 (Reserve Component Incentive Program Procedures) states in Paragraph 6.2, as a condition of the receipt of an incentive covered by this Instruction, each recipient shall be required to sign a written agreement stating that the member has been advised of and understands the conditions under which continued entitlement to unpaid incentive amounts shall be terminated and which advance payments may be recouped. That agreement shall clearly specify the terms of the Reserve service commitment that authorizes the payment of the incentive to the member. NOTHING FOLLOWS