2. The applicant requests, in effect, authorization to receive incentive payment for a Do-it-yourself (DITY) move he made on 17 February 1995 prior to receiving authorization (orders) in conjunction with his expiration of term of service (ETS) on 27 April 1995. 3. The applicant states that he was scheduled to begin terminal leave on 24 February 1995 in conjunction with his ETS on 27 April 1995. He goes on to state that he had applied for separation under the Special Separation Benefit (SSB) program prior to his separation and had not received any word of the outcome of his application prior to taking terminal leave. He goes on to state that he and his wife had purchased a home in Charlotte, North Carolina, and at that point he had inquired of his chain of command whether he could move without orders. His chain of command verified that it was permissible to make the move without orders, as long as he kept his receipts and provided them with a memorandum authorizing him to outprocess and clear Fort Bragg without orders. He continues by stating that he outprocessed with the memorandum but his ETS was subsequently extended to 10 May 1995. However, he did not receive his ETS orders until 25 April 1995. He also states that he was never advised that he could not move until he had orders and that he was also cleared by the transportation office without orders. He continues by stating that he submitted his transportation packet, which included his receipts, weight tickets, etc., to the transportation office on 27 April 1995 and was informed that it would take 4 to 6 weeks to be completed. On 29 June 1995 he contacted officials at the transportation office to inquire as to the status of his case and was informed that his packet had been lost. In July 1995 an official of the transportation office contacted him and informed him that his paperwork had been found and that his request had been disapproved because he moved prior to receiving orders. 4. The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 28 May 1986 for a period of 3 years. He remained on active duty through a series of extensions and reenlistments. His ETS after his last reenlistment was 27 April 1995. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 July 1992. 5. The applicant, while serving as a special forces weapons sergeant at Fort Bragg, submitted a request for separation under the SSB option of the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program. However, on 22 February 1995 the applicant’s unit prepared a memorandum requesting that the applicant be allowed to outprocess and clear Fort Bragg without orders. The applicant’s clearance papers indicate that he outprocessed and cleared Fort Bragg, to include transportation, based on the memorandum. 6. On 25 April 1995, 2 days prior to his ETS, officials at Fort Bragg contacted officials at the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) to determine the status of his request. Officials at the PERSCOM informed the Fort Bragg officials that the applicant’s request had been disapproved and that he would be extended to 10 May 1995 for the convenience of the government. The applicant’s ETS orders were published on 25 April 1995 with an effective date of discharge of 10 May 1995. 7. Accordingly, he was honorably discharged on 10 May 1995 based upon completion of required active service. He had served 8 years, 11 months, and 13 days of total active service. 8. In a previous case involving similar circumstances, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics (DCSLOG) which opined that the Per Diem Transportation and Travel Allowances Committee’s message of January 1993 authorized the Services concerned or its representative to approve after-the-fact DITY moves on a case-by-case basis for moves occurring after 15 January 1993. HQDA delegated the authority to its major commands effective 1 December 1993. CONCLUSIONS: 1. It appears that the applicant was advised that he could clear and outprocess Fort Bragg without orders. This conclusion is supported by the fact that his clearance papers plainly show that he had cleared every organization on post required of him, to include the transportation office, based on the aforementioned memorandum. Therefore, it is reasonable to surmise that he was told he could be reimbursed for his move if he kept his receipts. 2. While the reasons for the delay in publishing orders are not explained in the available records, it is apparent that the delay has worked an injustice upon the applicant. Although the applicant was pending the outcome of his SSB application, this did not prevent the servicing military personnel office (MILPO) from publishing his separation orders once he was within 90 days or less of his scheduled ETS. 3. The fact that he did not receive his ETS orders in a timely manner does not appear to be the fault of the applicant or a situation over which he had any control. As a result, he has been denied a benefit that he would have been otherwise eligible to receive, the denial of payment for his DITY move. 5. Consequently, the applicant should be allowed to present his receipts to document his DITY move and be reimbursed in the form of incentive payment as if the error had never occurred. 6. In view of the foregoing, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by authorizing the individual concerned reimbursement in the form of incentive payment for a DITY move, not to exceed his authorized weight allowance, as determined by the DFAS during the period in question. BOARD VOTE: GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION CHAIRPERSON