RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02842
            INDEX CODE: 128.14

      XXXXXX     COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) retirement  pay  be  equal
to the  Military Personnel Flight (MPF) estimate (plus or minus  $1  to  $2)
of 2 December 1997, which he signed off on prior to  accepting  the  15-year
early retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The combined delta of his wife’s 15-year retirement  plus  his  own  15-year
retirement is actually $2,544 per year less  than  the  original   estimate.
MPF, on 7 October 1998, recalculated their retirement  pay  using  the  same
pay calculator estimator as the  MPF did in December  and  came  up  with  a
different amount of estimated retired pay.  Their  combined  retirement  pay
is $480  less  than  this   estimate.    input  into  the  calculator  model
identical numbers as the  input; however,  they  used  the  1998  pay  scale
rather  than  the  1997.   They  based  life  changing  decisions   on   the
estimates, which they were  told  were  within  $1  to  $2  of  actual  DFAS
retirement pay.  They would not have  retired  had  they  known  what  their
“actual DFAS pay” was, as stated by DFAS on 25 September 1998.   Again,  the
MPF would not let them take the 15-year retirement  until  they  knew  their
estimated retirement pay (plus or minus $1 - $2) and  they  acknowledged  in
writing what their retirement pay would be.  They want  the  retirement  pay
they contractually  agreed  to  at  the   MPF  prior  to  taking  the  early
retirement.  They understand it was an estimate.  However,  they  were  told
several times by the  and AF MPF, the estimate, using  the  pay  calculator,
was within $1 to $2 of their  actual  DFAS  retirement  pay.   On  7 October
1998, Sgt E---, Superintendent  of  the  Systems  Shop  of  Retirements  and
Separations Branch, told his wife that he spoke with Lt T---,  the  designer
of the AF pay calculator estimator, and claimed Lt T--- said he  spent  over
two years testing the pay calculator and that it was within $1 to $2 of  the
actual DFAS retirement payment.

In support of the  appeal,  applicant  submits  a  fax  from   AFB,  Monthly
Retirement and SBP Estimates, and DFAS-CL Retired Pay Fact Sheet.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 2 December 1997, the applicant applied for and  was  approved  under  the
FY98 Drawdown Program for Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) to  be
effective 31 August 1998.

On 2 December 1997, the  MPF provided a retirement estimate  of  $1,483  per
month to the applicant.

On 25 September 1998, Defense Finance and Accounting Service- Center  (DFAS-
CL) released a Summary of Retired Pay Account to the applicant  quoting  the
applicant’s actual retired pay at $1,393 per month before taxes.

On 7 October 1998,  AFB provided a retirement estimate of $1,398  per  month
to the applicant.

The applicant was  required  by  AFI  36-3203  to  sign  a  Retirement  Pre-
application Checklist prior to applying for retirement.

On 31 August 1998, applicant retired under the provisions  of  AFI  36-3203,
Temporary Early Retirement Authority, in the grade of major.  He had  served
15 years, 2 months, and 11 Days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Retirements  Branch,  Directorate,  Personnel   Program   Mgmt,
AFPC/DPPRR, reviewed this application and states the estimate the  applicant
received on 2 December 1997 clearly states “the dollar  amount  shown  below
is an estimate of your retirement pay.”  This document also directs  members
to “Contact DFAS-CL for  official  retired  pay  estimates.”   There  is  no
evidence  the  applicant  ever  consulted  that  agency.   By  signing   the
Retirement Pre-application Checklist, the applicant did not sign a  contract
for a specific  retirement  pay  amount,  but  simply  acknowledged  he  had
received a retired pay estimate and  understood  how  his  retired  pay  was
computed.  Both the  and  MPFs used the same service  date  information  for
computing the applicant’s retirement pay.  The  computation was produced  by
a different software program, which would account for the difference in  the
two amounts.   However,  after  reviewing  each  document,  they  discovered
incorrect information had been used in both retirement  calculations.   When
the applicant received the December 1997 estimate, an official 10  USC  1405
service date  had  not  yet  been  computed  by  AFPC’s  Retirements  Branch
personnel.  Normally, this date is not produced until an individual  reaches
18 years of service.  However, for early retirements, it is produced by  the
Retirements Branch at the time the  applicant’s  retirement  application  is
approved.  As a substitute, either the applicant’s pay date or total  active
federal military service date (TAFMSD) could be used for  the  10  USC  1405
service date, but with varying results.  The   MPF  could  not  provide  the
applicant with a correct estimate without the  official  10  USC  1405  date
required to properly use the retirement pay calculator.   For  reasons  they
cannot explain, both MPFs substituted the applicant’s pay date  for  the  10
USC 1405 date when preparing the estimates.   Because  the  applicant’s  pay
date was used,  the  computation  provided  a  higher  pay  multiplier  and,
therefore, produced a higher retirement pay estimate.   To  demonstrate  the
effect of this difference, they prepared  a  retirement  estimate  with  the
same software used by the  MPF and the applicant’s TAFMSD  for  the  10  USC
1405 date.  They produced a retirement pay estimate of $1,391, a  difference
of $7 from the applicant’s actual retired pay.  Although they acknowledge  a
difference existed between  the  December  1997  estimate  provided  to  the
applicant and his actual retirement  pay,  the  applicant  has  not  clearly
demonstrated this difference  substantiates  that  an  injustice  has  taken
place.  Again, without the official 10 USC 1405 date, required  to  properly
use the retirement pay calculator, the  MPF  could  not  produce  a  correct
estimate for the applicant.  At  the  time  the  applicant  was  considering
retirement, the  MPF provided him with an estimate of  his  retirement  pay.
The applicant was additionally offered an opportunity to obtain an  official
estimate from the agency that is the office of  primary  responsibility  for
retired military  pay.   He  declined  to  contact  DFAS-CL  for  this  very
information.  Furthermore, there are no provisions of law that allow  for  a
higher rate of retired pay without an equivalent period of  active  service.
Therefore, they recommend the applicant’s request be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at  Exhibit
C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant  reviewed  the  advisory  opinion  and  states  that  no  one,
including DFAS, could give them  the  exact  amount  of  their  retired  pay
without a 10 USC 1405 date.  They understood this fact to  be  true  at  the
time of the  meeting.  They also were assured by  the   MPF  personnel  that
though the pay estimator was not exact, it was within  $1-$2  of  what  they
would be getting in retired  pay;  and  therefore,  there  was  no  need  to
contact DFAS for they could not provide a better estimate or  exact  retired
pay amount without the 1405 date.  They  knew  they  could  live  with  this
range of model accuracy; and therefore, made up their minds to retire  based
on the estimated amount of retired pay they would be getting.   In  response
to AFPC/DPPRR’s advisory opinion stating “there  is  no  evidence  applicant
ever consulted (DFAS).” is not true.  They contacted  DFAS  about  10  times
only to get a recording.  They contacted their senator regarding this  issue
and he contacted DFAS on a special number and  had  them  recalculate  their
retired pay.  Neither he nor his wife would have  left  the  military  early
had they known what their actual retired  pay  would  be.   They  knew  what
their bottom line was for monthly expenditures  and  according  to  the  pay
estimate they were provided at the , they could just barely make ends  meet.
They wanted to go back to school or start their  own  business.   Currently,
the over $2,500 delta in retired  pay  for  his  family  per  year  severely
limits their lifestyle while they  are  trying  to  achieve  their  post-Air
Force goals.  They are suffering a grave  injustice  due  to  an  Air  Force
mistake.  They are not requesting the board to reinstate them into  the  Air
Force, but rather to grant them the money they had counted on for a  smooth,
post-Air Force retirement.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law  or
regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice warranting partial  relief  of  the
applicant’s request.  The Board notes that the  estimates  provided  by  the
Military  Personnel  Flights  (MPFs),  for  unknown  reasons,  provided  the
applicant’s pay date for the 10 USC 1405 date when preparing the  estimates.
 Because the pay date was  used,  the  computation  provided  a  higher  pay
multiplier and, therefore, produced a higher retirement pay  estimate.   The
estimate provided by the   MPF  and  the  Summary  of  Retired  Pay  Account
released by DFAS-CL has a difference of  $90  per  month.   We  believe  the
applicant was led to believe that there would be a small difference  between
the estimate and his actual retired pay and, based on that belief,  he  made
a life changing decision.  The  applicant  states  had  he  known  what  his
actual retired pay would be, he would not have left the military early.   We
note that the  MPF estimate provided to the  applicant  states  “The  dollar
amount shown below is an estimate of your  retirement  pay.”  This  document
also  directs  members  to  “Contact  DFAS-CL  for  official   retired   pay
estimates.” and provides an address.  It  appears  that  the  applicant  did
make an effort, telephonically,  to  contact  DFAS-CL  to  get  an  accurate
estimate of his retired pay.  The Board  feels  that  the  applicant  should
have written to DFAS-CL when  he  was  unable  to  contact  them  by  phone.
Although the applicant did  take  some  steps  to  contact  DFAS-CL  for  an
official retired pay estimate, the Board  believes  the  applicant  had  the
responsibility to get an accurate estimate  from  DFAS-CL  before  accepting
the 15-year early  retirement.   The  Board  is  of  the  opinion  that  the
applicant should be held partially  responsible  and  we  recommend  partial
relief by granting 75% of the difference  in  retired  pay.   Therefore,  we
recommend the record be corrected to the extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected  to  show  that  he  was  commissioned  a  second
lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, and entered extended  active  duty  on
26 March 1983, rather than 26 October 1983.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 17 June 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

           Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
           Mrs. Margaret A. Zook, Member
           Ms. Leta C. O’Connor, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Oct 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 25 Nov 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Dec 98.
   Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Response, dated 4 Jan 99, w/atchs.






                 Panel Chair


AFBCMR 98-02842




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XXXXXX, XXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that he was commissioned
a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, and entered extended active
duty on 26 March 1983, rather than 26 October 1983.




            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency