APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his records be corrected to show that he was entitled to a Regular Reenlistment Bonus. 

APPLICANT STATES:  That he did not receive a reenlistment bonus during his many reenlistments.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Counsel was silent on the issue.

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

On 17 June 1965, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army and continued through reenlistments and extensions, until his separation on 30 November 1994.

On 30 November 1994, he was honorably separated and placed on the retired list the following day.  His Report of Separation indicates that he had 29 years, 5 months and    14 days of creditable service.

On 22 June 1997, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) opined that the applicant must have reenlisted between 1968 and 1975, because of the maximum reenlistment/extension time being 6 years.  Further, his November 1972 Leave and Earning Statement (LES) shows a reenlistment bonus overpayment of $10.65.

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

1.  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.

2.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

3.  Since the applicant had an over-payment of his reenlistment bonus, it is a safe assumption that he had exceeded the maximum payment of $2,000.  Further, it is highly unlikely that a senior noncommissioned officer of the applicant’s caliber, who throughout his career had counselled hundreds of young NCO’s and officers on this very thing, could have himself fallen victim of not recognizing the error at the time.

4.  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

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director