| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III | Member | |
| Mr. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her separation document (DD Form 214) be corrected to allow her unemployment benefits.
APPLICANT STATES: That she believes the record to be in error or unjust in the following particulars: (1) “I am not being helped with the benefits of unemployment because of my DD 214”; (2) “I was given the opportunity to get out early and I took it”; (3) “I was never informed during my ACAP of the disqualification of being released early under Chpt 5-17”; (4) “I was released early with an honorable discharge”; (5) “I would appreciate it if someone would explain to me why it seems I’m being punished for something I had no knowledge of”; (6) “Why aren’t soldiers notify of the disqualifications that accompany this benefit (90-day release)”; (7) “Also, why does the military stress school and further your education while in the military, just to be treated like this”; (8) “I’m pretty much been left on the streets”; and, (9) “I’m very surprised to be treated like this when I served and am still serving the Government.”
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's available military records show:
During the period 12 March to 15 April 1997, she was in the Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program.
On 16 April 1997, she enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years, in pay grade E-2, for specific military occupational training (MOS) training and a $3,000 enlistment bonus. She completed her training and was awarded MOS 91B (Medical Specialist).
On 1 July 1999, she was advanced to pay grade E-4.
On 15 January 2001, she was honorably separated, in pay grade E-4, under Army Regulation 635-200. Her separation document indicates she had 3 years and 9 months of creditable service.
She is currently serving in the Army National Guard.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), dated 1 November 2000 indicates, in pertinent part, that soldiers may be voluntarily discharged or released from active duty for the convenience of the Government, up to 90 days before the expiration of their term of service, in order to attend a specific term at a college, university, vocational school, or technical school. Soldiers must apply and meet all criteria.
This Board operates under the standard of presumption of regularity in governmental affairs. The standard states, in effect, that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that all actions taken by the military were proper.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. There is no error or injustice in the available records of the individual concerned and she has not shown otherwise.
2. The applicant has not cited the benefits withheld from her based on her voluntary separation from active duty. She requested and received an early separation from active duty to attend school. It was approved and she was properly separated. It is noted that she enlisted for 4 years and received a $3,000 enlistment bonus, and she was separated 3 months prior to the expiration of her term of service. It is also noted she may be entitled to veteran benefits based on her honorable separation, and that she may contact the Department of Veterans Affairs for this purpose.
3. This Board does not have jurisdiction to grant the apparent requested relief of unemployment pay. Employment and unemployment of individuals is a matter for the appropriate state agency from which the individual concerned is a resident.
4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that her discharge was conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.
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
_tbr____ _mkp____ __rks___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001054005 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010807 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 100.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010908
She contends that she did not receive payment for her accrued leave because her bonus was recouped. The Bonus Recouping Worksheet (provided by the applicant) shows that she was paid a bonus of $14,381.55 for a commitment of 4 years. The separation pay worksheet (provided by the applicant) shows that at the time of her discharge, she had additional pay entitlements of $2,671.00, which included $1,184.40 for her 21 days of accrued leave.
The applicant voluntarily requested early separation from the Air Force by submitting an AF Form 3 1 which indicated her reason for requesting early separation was miscellaneous reason. However, with the applicant’s desire to separate 01 Jan 98 (as indicated in her application), she still would not have been eligible for a separation “to attend school” because her normal expiration term of service (ETS) was 980328, more than 90 days allowed by Air Force Instructions. The Air Force approved...
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On October 22, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant relief by awarding the applicant the promised bonus. The Board finds, and the Chief Counsel admits, that the Coast Guard erred when it told the applicant he would be eligible for a $3,000 Level II bonus, even though that amount was not authorized in ALDIST 224/98, the applicable ALDIST at the time of his enlistment. correction of his military record is granted, as...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059648C070421
The applicant requests that she be paid an enlistment incentive cash bonus of $3000. The applicant’s military records show that she enlisted for pay grade E-4 in the Regular Army on 18 May 1999, for Army warrant officer flight training, Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 09W1. An advisory opinion provide by the Chief of the Accession Management Section, U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), states that the $3000 seasonal enlistment bonus was authorized for the MOS 09W at the...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2008-196
The JAG noted that under ALCOAST 064/07, the applicant was not entitled to an enlistment bonus because he had previously served in the military, and ALCOAST 064/07 states that bonuses were not available to enlistees with prior military service. 2005-117, the applicant stated that he was promised a $4,000 SELRES enlistment bonus by his recruiter. In addition, if he meets or has met the participation standards under Chapter 4 of the Reserve Policy Manual during the year following his...
2010-050 SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant asked to be paid a $6,000 Selected Reserve (SELRES) enlistment bonus that she was promised for her 6-year enlistment on August 7, 2007. The Page 7 dated July 19, 2007, shows that in promising her the bonus, her recruiter relied on an ALCOAST that was no longer in effect. Therefore, the Board finds that the recruiter’s promise should be kept, and the applicant should be paid the enlistment bonus in accordance with the payment terms of the ALCOASTs.
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2008-005
1999-027, the applicant had been promised a Reserve enlistment bonus by her recruiter. Although the JAG rec- ommended only that the Board make the contract voidable, the Board granted relief, finding that the recruiter had promised the applicant the bonus as an enticement to enlist and that, “whenever reasonable, such promises should be kept, especially when the member relies on the erroneous advice and gives due consideration for the promised benefit.” In BCMR Docket No. Although the...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2009-188
1 COMDTINST 7220.1 states that a SELRES enlistment bonus will be recouped if a member enlists on active duty. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS ALCOAST 056/06 authorizes an enlistment bonus of $6,000 for members enlisting in the SELRES for at least six years. When the applicant was counseled about her SELRES enlistment bonus on May 15, 2007, she acknowledged having read and fully understood COMDTINST 7220.1, which clearly states that SELRES enlistment bonuses are subject to recoupment if the...
The military record submitted by the Coast Guard does not contain either the Page 7 with the promise of the $6,000 enlistment bonus or his SELRES enlistment contract. 1999-027, the applicant had been promised a Reserve enlistment bonus by her recruiter. In addition, if he meets or has met the participation standards under Chapter 4 of the Reserve Policy Manual during the year following his completion of MST “A” School, his record shall be corrected to show that he is eligible for and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021219
Counsel states the applicant obtained a medical waiver for anxiety and depression to enroll in the ROTC Program. Counsel states the applicant was advised that she had two options for withdrawing from the ROTC Program, one was to voluntarily disenroll or request medical disenrollment and the second option was nonparticipation. Therefore, it would be appropriate to show she was disenrolled from the ROTC Program by reason of medical disqualification and canceling her ROTC debt.