| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by authorizing retroactive payments for Medical Additional Special Pay (MASP) and Incentive Special Pay (ISP)
APPLICANT STATES: In effect he defers to his counsel.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: That the original Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision was based on the understanding that the applicant had not executed the contracts for special pay. Counsel argues that this is only partly true in that the applicant was informed that he was not eligible to retroactively sign the contracts and that his only recourse was to apply to this Board. Counsel reports that the applicant has continued to pursue his request to be separated from the Army in the Court of Appeals. Counsel also reports that, since the ABCMR’s original decision, the applicant has sought and received special pay for the period 2001-2002. She contends that he was informed that the only way for him to receive the retroactive pay was for him to apply to this Board and that successfully appealing to the ABCMR would pose no problem. He “did not execute contracts for the periods 1999-2000 or 2000-2001 before the periods to which he would be committed because he did not know what decision would be rendered regarding his request to resign, whether from the Army the Board or the Court. He could not commit to further service while pursuing his immediate release. The Board’s denial contradicts that advice. It is irrational for the Board to insist that he be denied the pay because he did not sign the contract when, in fact, he had already performed the work. He had asked for a personal appearance hearing and repeats that request. Counsel contends, in effect, that notifying the Board of the applicant’s dispute about his obligated service was prejudicial. The “special pay” expert at Walter Reed Army Medical Center has found that the provision cited by the Board does not apply.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the decisional document prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR2001052224) on 21 August 2001.
The counsel’s submission is new argument that requires Board consideration.
As noted in the original decision the applicant had not executed the contracts that would have authorized him to receive these two categories of special pay.
Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR. It provides that, if a request for reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be
resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration. This includes but is not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.
The regulation provides further guidance for reconsideration requests that are received more than one year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case. In such cases, the staff of the Board will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or if there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously with or within a short time after the Board’s original decision. If the staff finds such evidence, the case will be resubmitted to the Board. If no such evidence is found, the application will be returned without action.
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. The applicant admits, through counsel, that he could not sign the contracts, which would have authorized the special pay and obligated him to additional service, because he was seeking his release from active duty. There is nothing illogical about denying a benefit based upon a reciprocal action when that action was not and has not been taken.
2. There is no available evidence to show that the contractual requirements do not apply to this case nor that the applicant was so informed. Furthermore, the applicant does not claim he made any decision based upon faulty advice. He admits, through counsel, that he took the actions he did for his own convenience because he intended to leave the Army.
3. Although the applicant requested for a personal appearance before the Board, there is no statutory or regulatory right to or a formal hearing. The Board receives over 15,000 applications each year, but normally grants fewer than fifteen formal hearings a year. Formal hearings are granted only when the Board determines that a case is so complex, the records so incomplete, or that only sworn testimony can provide the necessary information. This case does not warrant such hearing.
4. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments, are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.
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
__WTM__ __CLG __ __CLG__ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
| CASE ID | AR2001063824 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | This applies only to ADRB |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020402 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 128.06 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084141C070212
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005769
Counsel requests, in effect, reconsideration of the applicant's previous request for remission/full administrative relief for a $10,000 officer accession bonus (OAB) he received and is now being recouped because a Federal recognition appointment was never extended to him. His service record does not indicate he was granted permanent Federal recognition for this appointment. As a result, the Board recommends that all State Army National Guard and Department of the Army records of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061107C070421
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064185C070421
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066813C070402
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The Board noted the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061133C070421
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057383C070420
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 March 2002 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001057383 The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant’s submission is new evidence that requires Board consideration.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070389C070402
The applicant enlisted in the US Army Reserve (USAR) for 6 years on 30 August 1991. It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence (including but not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted) that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration. The applicant was not eligible...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080818C070215
APPLICANT REQUESTS :Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by awarding him the Purple Heart and the Expert Badge with Rifle Bar. Once the Korean War Service Medal has been authorized by the Department of the Air Force, the applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records to add this foreign award to his DD Form 214. Unfortunately, there is no available evidence to show that the applicant qualified Expert with the service rifle; however...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060776C070421
On 11 August 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant submitted an application to this Board requesting an upgrade of his discharge on 4 February 1989. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.