MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           10 October 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075906

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	     advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of his request for hazardous duty pay.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the Board’s invocation of the Barring Act was inappropriate since he has been attempting to get his hazardous duty pay since 1956.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 2 May 2002 (AR2001065364).

In support of his request for reconsideration he submits a letter from the Army Finance Center, dated 20 November 1956, to the Field Records Division.  In that letter it was requested that the applicant’s unit’s records be searched for a military pay order (hazardous duty orders).  The applicant also submits a letter from his elected representative informing the applicant that his hazardous duty status could not be established because of an absence of hazardous duty orders.

The Department of Defense Pay Manual (DODPM), paragraph 20331, Demolition Duty Entitlement, states that a soldier entitled to basic pay who is required by competent orders to perform duty involving the demolition of explosives as a primary duty, is entitled to incentive pay.

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

1.  The documentation submitted by the applicant shows that he did, in fact, attempt to be paid hazardous duty pay as early as 1956.  As such, the invocation of the barring statute in the Board's 2 May 2002 Memorandum of Consideration was in error.

2.  However, this documentation shows that in 1956 action was taken to locate the applicant's hazardous duty orders, which are required for a soldier to receive hazardous duty pay.  In 1958 his Representative in Congress notified him that the Army could not locate any hazardous duty orders pertaining to him.  That response essentially exhausted his administrative avenues to receive hazardous duty pay unless he could produce the missing hazardous duty orders.

3.  In the absence of other documentation not made available to the Board, the applicant's next attempt to be given hazardous duty pay was in his application to the Board on 1 November 2001, 43 years after his Representative in Congress informed him that his hazardous duty orders could not be located.  

4.  The fire at the records repository at St. Louis, Missouri, was in 1973.  That fire, which destroyed the applicant's military records, along with the passage of time, has now made it impossible to recreate what occurred in the applicant's case.  However, since his records were reviewed for hazardous duty orders when they were still intact, and no orders were found, he was not entitled to hazardous duty pay.  He has not submitted any documentation which alters the finding made in 1958.

5.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments, are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

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

___jtm  __  ___rwa__  ____jtm _  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075906	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20021010	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.