| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | |
| Mr. Christopher J. Prosser | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his DD Form 214 be corrected to show a separation date of 7 July 1993 in lieu of 30 April 1993.
He implies that his leave and earning statements (LES) of May, June, and July 1993, indicate that he was on transition leave during those months. The applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214, orders removing him from active duty, and his leave and earning statements for the mentioned three months.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the Missouri Army National Guard for six years on 10 September 1963. He was discharged from that agency on 3 January 1968 in order to enlist in the New Jersey Army National Guard, remaining with the New Jersey Guard until his transfer to the Retired Reserve on 31 January 1996.
He was ordered to active duty in an Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) status on 1 June 1981 and remained on active duty until his discharge in 1993. His DD Form 214 shows that he was released from active duty under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-5 on 30 April 1993 and transferred to a National Guard unit in East Orange, New Jersey. That form shows that he was involuntarily separated from a Title 32 AGR tour, that his character of service was honorable, and that he was authorized separation pay.
The LES the applicant submits with his request shows that he was apparently receiving pay and allowances for the months of May and June 1993, but that most of those pay and allowances for those months were deducted on the July 1993 LES. The portions of the LES concerning his debt, advance debt, refund, etc., are unexplainable. The three LES do show a leave balance.
National Guard Regulation 600-5 prescribes the policies and procedures for management of Army National Guard personnel in the AGR program serving on full time National Guard duty under Title 32, U.S.C., including continuation and separation. It provides for separation from AGR because of mandatory removal dates, 20 years of active Federal service, and non-selection by an AGR continuation board.
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
There is no evidence, nor has the applicant provided any, to indicate that his separation date was in error or unjust, notwithstanding the LES he has submitted, and as such there is no basis to correct his record to show that he was released from active duty in July 1993 in lieu of 30 April 1993.
DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 30 April 1993, the date he was released from active duty. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 30 April 1996.
The application is dated 6 November 2001 and the applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted.
DETERMINATION: The subject application was not submitted within the time required. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law. Prior to reaching this determination the Board looked at the applicant’s entire file. It was only after all aspects of his case had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of his record that the Board considered the statute of limitations. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it would have recommended relief in spite of the applicant’s failure to submit his application within the three-year time limit.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__FNE__ __WTM _ __CJP__ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065621 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020502 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 142.00 |
| 2. | 110.00 |
| 3. | 252 |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01857
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01857 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 89.0 days of leave be returned to his Leave and Earnings Statement (LES), leave balance. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action with regard to his supplementary requests for relief identified in his electronic rebuttal to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018357
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of Item 18 (Remarks) on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), to show he received Casual Pay $46,484.90 instead of Separation Pay $56,978.34. 2. But the Veterans Administration (VA) would not pay him his monthly disability check because his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged with separation pay instead of casual pay. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was not recommended for continuation in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003867
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) to show that he served on active duty from July 1993 to June 1996. The applicant states that his DD Form 214 shows that his active duty service ended in November 1993 when he actually served on active duty until 27 June 1996. He was issued a DD Form 214 for this active duty service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150006183
The applicant states the debt was incurred from BAH overpayment from 27 April 2009 to 14 March 2014. The applicant provides: * Partial approval by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) * Request to prorate debt with favorable endorsements by the Missouri Army National Guard (MOARNG) * DA Form 3508 (Application for Remission/Cancellation of Indebtedness) * 2009 active duty orders * 2009 DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Separation Orders 064-284 * DD...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-05226
The complete NGB/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit D. NGB/A1PF does not provide a recommendation but states that upon review of the applicants debt generated against his Aviator Continuation Pay agreement, they have concluded that, as it currently stands, the debt is valid. Additionally, the applicant has not provided supporting documentation to establish a basis to extend his MSD or show that he was treated in an unjust manner with respect to his promotion and repayment of ACP. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051136C070420
The applicant was considered by the next available Reserve CW3 Promotion Board, the FY94 promotion board, but was not selected for promotion. The effective date for the applicant’s promotion to CW3 from the FY95 board His present promotion memorandum to CW4, dated 1 August 2000, should be corrected to be dated 19 May 2000, the adjournment date of the promotion board and therefore the effective date for promotion to CW4 and the date from which CW4 pay and allowances should be paid.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000638C070208
The board determined that the applicant did wrongfully use marijuana, and recommended that he be discharged from the Illinois Army National Guard for misconduct with a General Discharge, with the stipulation that his discharge be suspended as the convening authority may determine. On 26 June 1995 the applicant appealed to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) requesting that his discharge be upgraded to honorable and also requesting that he be reinstated [in the Army National Guard]. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003879
The applicant states, in effect: * he received a letter from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) informing him of a $13,317.70 debt as a result of overpayment of BAH from 1 March 2004 to 30 January 2005 * DFAS assumed that he was not entitled to BAH at all when in fact he was deployed to Iraq during this period * During this period, he was paid BAH at the O-3 rate, with dependents, at zip code 27520, at $1,211.00 per month; this was the proper amount * his records were updated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009793
Had DFAS processed his request, he would not have the debt. The form shows he requested to stop BAQ and that he had been assigned to government quarters. To determine injustice the application must contain evidence that the applicant did not know and could not have known of the error and/or the applicant inquired of a proper authority and was told the payment was correct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005122
The applicant provides copies of her: * notification of and request for remission of debt * Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) proceedings and medical records * sworn statements * transfer orders * separation documents and retirement orders CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The evidence of record shows she acknowledged she received the orders as of 15 October 2010. On 9 August 2012, the applicant was notified of a debt in the amount of $26,526.00 incurred due to...