APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his military record be corrected to reflect separation under the Early Retirement Program versus separation with the Special Separation Bonus (SSB).

APPLICANT STATES:  He was separated from active duty in August 1992 after electing to accept a lump sum separation payment (SSB).  He notes at the time of his separation there was no early retirement program but had there been he would have “taken the early retirement” not the lump sum payment.

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

He served on active duty between February 1976 and August 1992.  He was promoted to pay grade E-7 in March 1985 and held specialty 63E (Abrams Tank System Repairman) at the time of his release from active duty with nearly 17 years of active federal service.

On 4 August 1992 the applicant was voluntarily separated from active duty with an honorable characterization of service and transferred to the Army Reserve in pay grade 
E-7.  He received an SSB lump-sum payment of $57,640.23.

In December 1991 Department of the Army disseminated information regarding Voluntary Separation Incentive Programs available to soldiers who were fully qualified for retention but who voluntarily separated.  The announcement message noted “as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY92, Congress has approved two voluntary incentive programs to assist in maximizing voluntary separations during the drawdown.”  Implementation instructions for the voluntary separation incentive programs were announced by Department of the Army on 7 January 1992.  The two monetary separation incentives associated with the voluntary release program included the Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) and the Special Separation Bonus (SSB).

The FY93 Defense Authorization Act, enacted on 1 September 1992, enabled the service secretaries to implement an early retirement program (commonly referred to as the 15 year retirement program) if deemed necessary.
In April 1993 Department of the Army announced implementation of an early retirement program “to provide a temporary management tool to reshape the Army through FY95.” The implementation message noted that “early retirement is not an entitlement, and it will only be offered to soldiers and officers who meet the strict eligibility requirements” and that “individuals who have already separated under provisions of any other voluntary or involuntary separation program are not eligible for early retirement.”

The temporary early retirement authority was intended to “be used to retire members whose skills are excess to the Army’s short term and long term needs.”  Although the early retirement program window was opened to individuals in several military specialties, grades and years of service the applicant’s specialty (63E) was not announced for participation until the FY95 program was implemented.

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

1.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant, who was not facing any involuntary separation action, elected to participate in a voluntary early transition program which paid him more than $57,000 in separation pay.

2.  Had he not voluntarily participated in the SSB program and remained on active duty he would not have been eligible for early retirement until the FY95 program was announced.  

3.  Just as individuals who separated prior to the implementation of the SSB/VSI program, individuals who separated prior to the early retirement program are prohibited from restoration to active duty for the purpose of receiving an enhanced monetary separation benefit.

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

5.  There is no evidence of error or injustice in the applicant’s case and he was properly separated, per his request, under the FY92 Voluntary Separation Incentive Program.

6.  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