ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00737
INDEX CODE: 136.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests the debt he
incurred as a result of the correction to his records be remitted.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 13 Oct 53. He was released
from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve on 12 Sep 57.
His grade at the time of his release from active duty was airman second
class (A2C/E-3). He was credited with 3 years, 11 months of active duty
service.
He served in the Air Force Reserve from 13 Sep 57 until his discharge on
15 Sep 88 due to physical disability with entitlement to severance pay. He
was progressively promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant with an
effective date and date of rank of 17 Oct 63. Applicant was credited with
11.30 years of active duty service for pay at the time of his discharge.
His ARPC Form 168, dated 26 Aug 88 reflects he was credited with 31 years
and 11 months of satisfactory Federal service.
On 18 Sep 87, the Board considered and approved his request to be retired
at age 60, rather than separated with severance pay. For an accounting of
the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, and,
the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of
Proceedings at Exhibit F.
In Jun 06, the applicant submitted a request questioning Defense Finance
and Accounting Service’s (DFAS’s) authority to recoup the severance pay he
received at discharge and requested they provide him documentation of the
pay he received. In addition, applicant requests the Board remit the debt
he incurred as a result of the money being recouped by DFAS (Exhibit G).
On 18 Apr 07, DFAS provided a response to the applicant’s request. Their
computation was based on applicant’s time in service of 11.30 years times
his basic pay in 1988. Applicant was advised that computations were based
on basic pay in 1988 and documentation from this time period is no longer
available. Computation of the amount due, if any, as a result of a
correction of records, is a function of DFAS (See Exhibit H).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice regarding the applicant’s request to have
his debt incurred as a result of the Board’s earlier decision remitted. A
careful reading of the documents provided by applicant reveals he believes
the law does not require his severance pay to be recouped. However, while
the Board is sympathetic to the applicant’s situation, no evidence has been
provided to the Board’s satisfaction that the earlier decision was not in
accordance with applicable laws and policies in effect at the time or that
he was treated differently than others similarly situated. We further note
the applicant was advised the severance pay he received resulting from his
correction of records would be recouped. Therefore, we conclude the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an
error or injustice and in the absence of persuasive evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
2. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to
our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was
denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be
reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not
considered with this application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 26 July 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 22 Nov 04,
with Exhibits.
Exhibit G. Applicant’s Letter, dated 28 Jun 06, with
attachments.
Exhibit H. Email, DFAS, dated 18 Apr 07.
Thomas S. Markiewicz
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01925
When he was on active duty from July 2002 through February 2004, he tried to resolve a portion of his debt. He believes the countless hours spent to resolve his pay record problems show that no one knows if his pay record is correct. He respectfully requests the Board waiver the remaining $3517.76 and have DFAS return the money he’s been paying them in the time he’s tried to resolve this case.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00737
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00737 INDEX CODE: 136.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show that he retired from the Air Force Reserve at age 60 rather than being separated with Disability Severance Pay. He was briefed that the letter of eligibility for retired pay at...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01570
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by DFAS and the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DFAS recommends relief be granted, indicating that there are competing statutes and implementing directives which prevented the applicant from fulfilling her five-year ADSC. By law, the applicant had to...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02194
At the time of her separation she had been disqualified from Air Traffic Control duties and had been continued on active duty awaiting waivers and Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) processing. With regard to the presence of medical conditions that were potentially disqualifying for controller duties, the Medical Consultant states the fact that she decided to voluntarily separate under pregnancy provisions rather than remain on active duty and complete the planned evaluations and...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03707
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03707 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retired pay be calculated under the Final Basic Pay retirement plan rather than the High-36 retirement pay plan and his debt be removed. The complete DFAS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, stating, in part, there is...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that it is not true that his depression predated his Accession Physical exam on 12 December 1991. He states, at no time prior to this date had he been diagnosed with depression. He further states that if the decision is that the funds expended for his education are to...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00223
On 10 Sep 03, the Board did not restore his SSgt grade but instead promoted him to senior airman effective 9 Apr 03 and waived the HYT restriction so he could be eligible for promotion consideration by the 04E5 cycle. His present reenlistment (RE) code of 4D renders him ineligible to reenlist because of HYT restrictions, i.e., he has not yet been promoted to SSgt. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPPRR notes the applicant is not reenlistment eligible,...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00839
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DFAS-POCC/DE recommends denial and states after contacting the Remissions and Waiver Branch for a recommendation, that office notified them had they received the applicant’s remission request prior to his separation, they would have recommended the debt be collected in full. Applying this method to the fourth shipment produced a net weight of 3,120 pounds (78 inventory times 40 pounds), at a cost of...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-02601
He requested his former spouse be removed from SBP and stated that his current spouse wished to waive her right to SBP coverage. The finance center received his notification of divorce in Oct 95 and SBP spouse coverage and premiums were suspended. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant provided a notarized statement from his current spouse waiving her right to SBP spouse coverage dated 15 Sep 08 (Exhibit D).
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC 2 4 JUL 1998 Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-02785 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: application was partially approved by competent authority in the amount of $78 1.25. rds of the Department of the Air Force relating...