RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02844
            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 she signed off on prior to accepting  the  15-year
early retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The combined delta of her husband’s 15-year retirement plus her 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 her 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  $1,535  to
the applicant.

On 25 September  1998,  Defense  Finance  and  Accounting  Service-Cleveland
Center (DFAS-CL) released a Summary of Retired Pay Account to the  applicant
quoting the applicant’s actual retired pay at $1,413 before taxes.

On 7 October 1998,  AFB provided a retirement  estimate  of  $1,448  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.   She  had
served 15 years, 3 months, and 13 Days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Superintendent, System Support Branch, Directorate of Personnel  Program
Mgmt, AFPC/DPPRY, reviewed this application and states  that  the  applicant
called their office on 7 October  1998  claiming  that  her  retirement  pay
notice she received from DFAS-CL was approximately $120 less than  what  was
quoted to her  on  their  Web  site.   The  member  was  informed  during  a
conversation on 7 October 1998 that  the  Pay  Calculator  was  intended  to
provide an estimate amount of pay  she  would  receive.   Additionally,  the
applicant was informed that the Pay Calculator was designed  to  display  an
estimated figure based on 50% of the member’s last basic pay.   Furthermore,
these figures are  usually  within  a  few  dollars  from  the  actual  DFAS
calculated pay.  At no time, was the phrase “usually $1 or $2 off  from  the
actual pay” ever conveyed to the member.  The member was also informed  that
variations with pay, such as High-36 or the Military Retirement Reform  Act,
generally require close scrutiny and only DFAS-CL can  provide  an  accurate
estimated pay.  Lastly, the member was informed that a  disclaimer  was  put
on the Web notifying  all  users  that  the  figures  there  represented  an
estimated retired pay only.  For  an  official  retired  pay  estimate,  the
users are advised to  correspond  directly  with  DFAS-CL.   They  recommend
relief be denied.

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

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  she  had
received a retired pay estimate and  understood  how  her  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 $1,408, a  difference
of $5 from the applicant’s actual retired pay.  Although they acknowledge  a
difference existed between  the  December  1997  estimate  provided  to  the
applicant and her 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 her with an estimate of  her  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.   She  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 is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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  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.   Between  her  husband  and  herself  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.   She  and  her  husband
would not 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 her 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, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 her actual retired pay and, based on that belief, she  made
a life changing decision.  The applicant  states  had  she  known  what  her
actual retired pay would be, she 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 her retired pay.  The Board  feels  that  the  applicant  should
have written to DFAS-CL when she  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  she  was  commissioned  a  second
lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, and entered extended  active  duty  on
17 March 1983, rather than 17 August 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 L. O’Conner, 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/DPPRY, dated 22 Oct 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 25 Nov 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Dec 98.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response, dated 4 Jan 99, w/atchs.






                 Panel Chair


AFBCMR 98-02844




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 XXXXX, XXXXX, be corrected to show that she was commissioned a
second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, and entered extended active
duty on 17 March 1983, rather than 17 August 1983.




                 Director
                 Air Force Review Boards Agency