APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In two applications, correction of his separation document (DD Form 214) to show that he was authorized to separate under the Special Separation Benefit (SSB) option of the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (VSIP) with the appropriate separation designators, and correction of his DD Form 214 to show that he entered the service on 4 November 1984.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he inquired about separating from the service under the SSB option of the VSIP, but was never afforded the option.  He goes on to state that his orders authorized him to receive separation pay at the time of his separation.  However, when he arrived at the transition center, he was informed that he was not entitled to receive separation pay.  He further states that his separation codes are incorrect because they preclude him from getting the severance pay to which he is entitled and that his date of entry on active duty should reflect 4 November 1984 vice 5 November 1984. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted on 5 November 1984 for a period of 3 years.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 November 1986. 

On 15 June 1987 he reenlisted for a period of 5 years with entitlement to a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) in military occupational specialty 11B.  He was subsequently transferred to Germany on 29 November 1988 for a 3 year tour.  His scheduled expiration of term of service (ETS) was to be 14 June 1992.

Although not explained in the available records, orders were published on 25 June 1991 which authorized the applicant to separate from the service prior to his ETS, on 28 November 1991, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5.  The orders also indicate, in different type, that the applicant was authorized severance pay.

He underwent a physical examination on 16 September 1991 and was found fit for separation.

On 29 November 1991 the applicant was honorably released from active duty at Fort Dix, New Jersey, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, section II, and direction of the Secretary of the Army for the convenience of the government.  He had served 7 years and 25 days of total active service and was transferred to the USAR to complete his statutory service obligation.  His DD Form 214 indicates that he entered active duty on 5 November 1984 and that his separation code was “MFF”.  There is no indication that he received any separation pay at the time of his separation.

In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).  It opined, in effect, that there were no separation programs in effect at the time the applicant separated from the service which provided for separation pay.  Additionally, the first Voluntary Early Transition (VET) Program was not announced until October 1991.  Therefore, it is apparent, based on the DD Form 214, that the applicant requested to separate under the provisions of chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200.  

In an attempt to gain further clarification in this matter, a staff member of the Board contacted the PERSCOM.  It opined that at the time the applicant’s orders were published, the only way the applicant could have requested early separation was under secretarial authority (chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200) such as a request to attend school, accept employment, etc. 

In order to comply with Congressional intent to drawdown the Army through voluntary separation, the Department announced the provisions of the FY 1992 VET program through electronic message on 1 October 1991. 

In the interim, the Secretary of Defense was in the process of drafting guidance for the administration and payment of separation incentive pay for both officer and enlisted personnel in overstrength inventories to encourage them to leave active duty voluntarily.  On 20 December 1991 the Department announced the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1992, which established the VSIP and two separation incentive options.  Both separation incentive options, the Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) and the SSB, were offered jointly.  Service members who were approved for the VSIP had the option of receiving either the VSI or the SSB.  

Those who chose the SSB received a lump sum payment equal to 15 percent of his/her annual basic pay multiplied by 12 and multiplied again by his/her number of years of active military service.  In return, they had to agree to serve in the Ready Reserve for a period of not less than 3 years after completion of any remaining statutory obligation. 

The 20 December 1991 message also set forth the specific criteria for VSIP eligibility and provided the authority for enlisted members who had been approved for separation under the FY 1992 VET program BUT had not yet separated to apply under the VSIP which was effective 1 January 1992.  Commanders were instructed to “make every effort to contact soldiers in this category and notify them of this option before they are separated.  However, if a soldier eligible for VSI/SSB is separated under existing programs prior to applying for voluntary release under the VSI/SSB incentive program, that separation is valid and that separation, once executed, may not be revoked or rescinded in order to allow the soldier to apply under the VSI/SSB program.  Soldiers who do not wish to amend their original requests will be separated as scheduled.  All others will be extended and offered VSI/SSB . . ..”

Army Regulation 635-200 serves as the authority for enlisted separations.  Chapter 5 of that regulation states, in pertinent part, that Secretarial separation authority is normally exercises on a case-by-case basis and ordinarily is used when no other provisions of the regulation applies and early separation is clearly in the best interest of the Army.

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

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, and considering that there were no early release programs announced at the time his orders were published, it must be presumed that the applicant requested early separation and that his request was approved.

2.  It must also be presumed that the applicant’s separation orders were subsequently and incorrectly modified to add the authorization for separation pay.  There were no provisions to offer separation pay to enlisted personnel at the time he separated.

3.  The applicant’s separation documents correctly reflect the date the applicant entered the service and the correct separation code in effect at the time of his separation.  Therefore, there is no basis to approve his request.

4.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that an error or injustice exists in his case.

5.  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

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director