| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Gale J. Thomas | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | |
| Mr. Conrad V. Meyer | Member |
2. The applicant requests that he receive pay and allowances for the period
1 December through 9 December 1982.
3. The applicant states that he has exhausted all attempts to collect the monies owed to him from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) for the period 1-9 December 1982.
4. The applicant’s military records show that his first period of enlistment began on 29 June 1973 and ended with an honorable discharge on 25 July 1978. On 8 January 1980, he enlisted in the Regular Army where he served until he was discharged under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) on 11 January 1983. He was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. His discharge was based on a voluntary request for discharge, which he initiated on 10 December 1982. At the time of his request he was serving in pay grade E-5. On
17 December 1982, prior to his discharge, he was reduced to pay grade of E-1, in accordance with provisions established under Army Regulation 635-200 which requires that individuals discharged under other than honorable conditions be reduced to pay grade E-1 prior to separation.
5. On 18 February 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded the applicant’s 11 January 1983 UOTHC discharge to general and directed that his grade be restored to Sergeant/E-5.
6. As a result of the ADRB decision the Defense Finance and Accounting Service paid the applicant the difference between pay as an E-1 and that of an
E-5, from 10 December 1982 until 11 January 1983, the date of his discharge.
7. However, the applicant’s December 1982 and January 1983 leave and earning statements (LES), contain annotations that show the applicant received no pay during the month of December; either as an E-5 from 1 December until
17 December, when he was reduced, or as an E-1 from the 17th until the end of the month. In effect, the applicant received no pay, at any grade during the month of December 1982.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. It is unclear why the applicant received no pay for the month of December 1982, or why DFAS started paying him differential pay from E-1 to E-5 beginning on 10 December 1982, rather than beginning on 1 December, when the applicant was not reduced until 17 December.
2. The Board notes that the applicant is entitled to pay in the grade of E-5 for the entire month of December. However, based on the actions by DFAS, as a result of the ADRB action, the Board now notes that the applicant was merely paid the "difference" in pay between E-1 and E-5, as though the applicant had been receiving pay as an E-1 commencing on 10 December 1982.
3. It appears, based on available evidence, that the applicant is entitled to pay and allowances in the grade of E-5 from 1 December through 9 December 1982. Additionally, the Board notes that it may be appropriate to rectify the error in payment which may have resulted by paying the applicant the difference in pay between E-1 and E-5 between 10 December 1982 and the end of that month, when in fact the applicant may not have originally received any pay during that time.
4. However, notwithstanding the previous conclusions, the Board notes that the most appropriate action may be to have DFAS audit the applicant's finance records. In the event that an audit of the applicant's finance records reveals that he was in fact paid during the month of December 1982 the Board authorizes officials at DFAS to pay the applicant any funds due him as though he had never been reduced to the grade of E-1, based on evidence available to them. If he was in fact paid in the month of December 1982 then DFAS should pay the applicant any funds due him to compensate for the difference in pay he should have received and that which he did receive.
5. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by authorizing officials at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to audit the applicant's finance records and pay the applicant any pay and allowance due him as though he had never been reduced to pay grade E-1.
BOARD VOTE:
__CLA __ __TSK __ __CVM__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
____Celia L. Adolphi______
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002069670 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021210 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 128.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021768
Paragraph 3-4 of Army Regulation 600-20 states, for a PS ARNG Soldier who enlists in the ARNG more than 24 months after discharge, the DOR on restoration to a grade from which reduced following a successful appeal of the reduction or action by a superior authority to mitigate the punishment is the DOR held before the reduction. His record shows he was granted an enlistment waiver and he enlisted in the GAARNG on 6 January 2003 in the grade of PVT/E-1. As a result, the Board recommends that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007160
The applicant requests, in effect, that his records be corrected to show he applied in a timely manner for all pay and allowances due as a result of his discharge upgrade. Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes policies and procedures governing promotion and reduction of Army enlisted personnel. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. showing he applied to DFAS in a timely manner to obtain any monetary benefits...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022401
The DFAS official stated that the applicant requested correction to pay entitlement from 16 August 1982 to 30 April 1994 because he completed over 4 years of previous active enlisted service prior to becoming a commissioned officer. His record should be corrected to show, as of 16 August 1982, he was entitled to pay at the rate of O-1E for over 4 years of enlisted service. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003265C070205
She states that they were legally separated on 7 November 1977 and the decision to conclude with a divorce was made in March 1980 prior to the FSM’s retirement. He should not have been paying SBP premiums from on or about 10 June 1980, when they divorced, until 24 September 1983, when former spouse coverage for retired members was established. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. showing the FSM had...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013636
The evidence clearly shows he was retroactively promoted from the rank/pay grade of SFC/E-7 to MSG/E-8 with an effective date and date of rank of 28 June 2006. The evidence shows DFAS made a partial correction to his MILPAY record by paying him for the difference in entitlements between SFC/E-7 and MSG/E-8 during the period 28 June 2006 through 31 August 2008, the date he retired. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110008655
The applicant provides: * a letter from the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center, dated 15 September 1994 * a Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) military pay voucher, dated 10 January 1995 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. The DFAS pay...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014743
The FSM retired on 1 September 1962. The evidence of record shows the FSM retired on 1 September 1962, prior to the establishment of the SBP. Considering there is evidence to show it was the FSMs intent to provide SBP coverage for the applicant, his former spouse, it would be equitable to correct his records to show he changed his SBP spouse coverage to former spouse coverage on 24 September 1983.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013553
There is no evidence of record which indicates the applicant submitted a written request for a deemed election for former spouse coverage, although the 1983 divorce decree did not entitle her to make a request for a deemed election. Public Law 99-661, dated 14 November 1986, permitted divorce courts to order SBP coverage (without the members agreement) in those cases where the member was participating in the SBP or was still on active duty and had not yet made an SBP election. But neither...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003085
A letter from DFAS shows $80.69 was paid in premiums each month in 2000. b. DFAS states the additional money her husband was paying was due to the buy-in premiums or "Open Season" cost. However, only the spouse SBP premiums are refundable through Public Law 92-425. c. Public Law 105-261 states all SBP premiums will be terminated effective 1 October 2008 for all members who are at least 70 years old and have paid SBP premiums for 360 or more months.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021703
The applicant states: * he was paid at the E-3 rate rather than the E-5 rate while he was a Simultaneous Membership Program (SMP) cadet in the South Carolina Army National Guard (ARNG) * he made numerous attempts to correct the error * it was not until July 2010 that the State of South Carolina published orders promoting him to E-5 for the period beginning 18 October 2001 and ending 8 May 2003, before being commissioned upon college graduation * National Guard Regulation 600-100...