| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III | Member | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member |
2. The applicant requests that his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, be amended to give a separation code (SPD) that will allow him to retain his separation pay.
3. The applicant states that prior to his outprocessing an in-service recruiter told him that he could get separation pay if he would join the National Guard. He did as he was advised and his separation orders were amended to authorize him full separation pay. In November 1997, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service – Denver (DFAS-DE) garnished his drill pay. Before he could clear this up, he went to Turkey with his active duty spouse. Upon returning to the States, he was informed that his SPD was wrong and that was the reason his separation pay was being collected as a debt.
4. The applicant’s military records are not available. Information contained herein was obtained from alternate sources.
5. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 November 1985.
6. Orders dated 11 September 1996 assigned the applicant to the U. S. Army Transition Center with a date of discharge of 14 March 1997. On 6 December 1996, the 11 September 1996 orders were amended to authorize the applicant full separation pay. On 13 December 1996, the applicant was recruited by the Mississippi Army National Guard as an in-service recruit. He was released from active duty on 14 March 1997, apparently upon reaching his retention control point. His DD Form 214, item 26 shows he was given an SPD of KBK (voluntary discharge upon completion of required active service).
7. On 31 March 1998, the applicant was discharged from the Army National Guard by reason of temporarily residing overseas and transferred to the U. S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) for completion of his contractual obligation.
8. On 7 August 1998, DFAS-DE notified the applicant that it appeared from his DD Form 214 that he was intended to received separation pay but his SPD did not authorize separation pay.
9. The Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation, paragraph 350201 entitles a member to full separation pay when the member is fully qualified for retention but is denied reenlistment and the member has entered into a written agreement to serve in the Ready Reserve of a Reserve component for a minimum period of 3 years following the separation from active duty.
10. On 23 August 2001, DFAS-Indianapolis Center informed the Board’s analyst that an SPD of JBK (involuntary discharge upon completion of required active service) would entitle a member to either full or half separation pay depending on the information contained in the separation orders.
11. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) because it appeared the applicant may have been erroneously identified as having reached his retention control point. PERSCOM opined that the applicant’s case had merit and granted partial relief by issuing a Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 215, correcting his SPD to read JBK. PERSCOM opined that any monies collected by DFAS to date, to include all Federal income tax refunds withheld, be refunded.
12. A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment. He did not respond in the given time frame.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. It appears that the applicant was entitled to full separation pay but because he was given the incorrect SPD DFAS is collecting that pay as a debt. PERSCOM has taken partial steps to grant relief by amending his DD Form 214 to show he was given an SPD that would authorize him full separation pay.
2. In view of the foregoing and in accordance with the advisory opinion, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the applicant was authorized full separation pay, that any efforts to collect his separation pay be stopped, that any separation pay collected thus far be refunded to the applicant to include any and all Federal income tax refunds that may have been garnished by the Government in its collection efforts and any interest collected by the Government in its collection efforts.
2. That if any notice of debt against the applicant has gone to any credit agency, that those agencies be notified that the debt regarding this collection was erroneous.
3. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing (correction of the applicant’s DD Form 214) be denied as this correction has already been made.
BOARD VOTE:
__jns___ __tbr___ __le____ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
John N. Slone
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001059560 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011220 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (GRANT) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 128.14 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02431
However, he was placed on the retired list effective 1 June 2001 and received retired pay through November 2001. Although he was selected for continuation on active duty, the Retirements Processing Section at AFPC was not notified until after the 1 June 2001 retirement had consummated in MilPDS. The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While AFPC contends he was an active duty...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018053
The advisory official stated that based on available information, there is no record that any requests to either recoup or cancel her debt was made by her command. The advisory official recommended granting her request and cancelling the bonus-related debt based on her medical condition at the time of separation and honorable discharge. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. showing she was approved for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059644C070421
A Fort Campbell pay officer states that the CID case was closed favorably for the applicant and that the charges against him were dropped and dismissed entirely and that the local pay office did not have the authority to initiate the collection, which the applicant is now appealing. Although his wife had a prior existing marriage, the second marriage remained valid under California law. When validity of a marriage is questionable, submit the case to DFAS for a determination on validity of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606815C070209
APPLICANT STATES: That at the time he requested separation under the Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) option of the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (VSIP), he also requested a waiver of recoupment of any funds he still owed (in lieu of completing his active duty service obligation (ADSO)) for having participated in an ACS program. He specified in his request that he did not desire to separate from the service if his request for the VSI was not approved. Although, the applicants...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002065380C070402
On 3 March 2001, the applicant completed and his commander signed an Application for Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness, DA Form 3508-R. At that time he owed two debts totaling $4,496.80 due to overpayment of his pay and allowances when his PEBD was calculated incorrectly, $1,198.88 of which had been collected. The Board believes that had the PERSCOM acted upon the applicant’s request for remission or cancellation of this indebtedness prior to any collections being made by DFAS,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060263C070421
He subsequently received a letter from the finance office at Fort Jackson on 20 January 1997, which indicated that the evacuation allowances would cease effective 5 December 1996 and that his dependents needed to submit a final voucher. Accordingly, it was reasonable for him to presume that the allowances being provided directly to his dependents would cease once he provided documentation to show that they were no longer his dependents. RECOMMENDATION : That all of the Department of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057966C070420
The applicant’s military records show that On 21 October 1996, while serving as a USAR soldier in the pay grade of E-6, the applicant completed a DD Form 2746 (Ready Reserve Mobilization Insurance Certificate) in which he elected coverage in the amount of $1,500.00 and initialed after the amount selected in block 7a of that form. In subsequent correspondence to the applicant’s congressional representative, the DFAS explained that the second election form increasing his coverage should not...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02163
His request was disapproved by the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC). On 30 October 2006, he submitted an application for separation under the provision of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3207 (completed required active service), requesting a date of separation (DOS) of 30 November 2006. DFAS-JECC/DE’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states the AFPC...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072510C070403
He goes on to state that he received his RRMIIP entitlements ($5,000 per month) until he was released from active duty on 19 April 1998 because he had been informed that he was eligible to continue receiving RRMIIP benefits. It states, in pertinent part, that an insured member ordered involuntarily into covered service is entitled to payment of a benefit for each month after a 30-day period of covered service, except that no member may be paid a benefit for more than 12 months during any...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2001-00580A
The applicant’s complete review is at Exhibit K. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL HQ USAF/JAA EVALUATION: HQ USAF/JAA reiterates that the applicant’s original debt of $50,669.90 was reduced to $25,669.90 and, to the extent that his reconsideration request was for the repayment of this validly established debt owed to the US, it should be denied. DFAS summarizes the applicant’s indebtedness and adjustments thereto as follows: $50,669.90 Original...