| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | |
| Mr. Conrad V. Meyer | Member |
2. The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records to show his entitlement to special duty assignment pay (SDAP), hazardous duty (parachutist) pay and dive pay during the period of 1 May through 31 October 2000.
3. The applicant states, in effect, that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) has notified him that they are collecting back the SDAP, parachutist pay and dive pay that he was authorized to receive during the period of 1 May through 31 October 2000, while assigned to the 5th Special Forces Group at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. He goes on to state that he contacted DFAS officials and was informed that officials at Fort Campbell initiated the transaction that resulted in the recoupment of those funds and that those officials would have to make the necessary input to change the debt. However, when he contacted officials at the Fort Campbell finance office, he was informed that they could no longer make such transactions. He further states that he traveled to Fort Campbell to obtain the documents necessary to prove that he was authorized to receive those funds. In support of his application he submits documents showing that he was authorized SDAP, parachutist and dive pay until his retirement on 30 November 2000.
4. The Memorandum of Consideration (MOC) of the Board’s 18 April 2002 review of the case (AR2002066436) is incorporated herein by reference as if wholly set forth.
5. The applicant’s submission is new evidence and/or argument that requires Board consideration.
6. The supporting documents submitted by the applicant consists of orders and statements from officials of his former Special Forces unit at Fort Campbell which indicate that the applicant was authorized parachutist pay effective 27 January 1994 until he retired on 30 November 2000. He was authorized combat diver pay from 30 April 1994 until 30 November 2000 and he was authorized SDAP from 1992 until his retirement on 30 November 2000. He also submits a copy of the notification of debt from the DFAS which indicates that his SDAP, parachutist and dive pay was recouped for the period of 1 May 2000 through 31 October 2000.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The evidence submitted by the applicant clearly shows that he was in fact entitled to receive SDAP, parachutist and combat diver pay during the period in question. Therefore, it appears that an administrative error occurred which has deprived the applicant of entitlements that he was otherwise entitled to receive.
2. Accordingly, the Board finds that the debt imposed against the applicant is an invalid debt and is thereby null and void. He is entitled to receive all funds collected to date, to include interest charges, and all agencies that were notified of the debt should be notified that the debt was erroneous.
3. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, correcting the applicant’s records as recommended below would correct an error or rectify an injustice.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that he individual concerned was entitled to receive SDAP, Parachutist and Dive Pay during the period of 1 May 2000 through 30 November 2000, that any debts related to those entitlements are erroneous, and that he be repaid any monies collected to date (to include interest charges imposed) as a result of this invalid debt.
2. That all appropriate agencies be notified that the debt in question was an invalid debt and should be removed from his records.
BOARD VOTE:
___cla___ ___cvm _ __tsk ___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
____Celia L. Adolphi_____
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
| CASE ID | AR2002076638 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/12/10 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 297 | 128.1400/SDAP/JUM/DIVE |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2002 | 2002066436C070402
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 | CY2005 | 20050002209C070206
The applicant submitted a rebuttal to the debt on 7 January 2002 and a request for remission or cancellation of the debt on 17 January 2002. The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant and he responded to the effect that he disagreed with the response and that not only was the debt incurred because personnel at Fort Riley and the DFAS did not know the regulations and failed to process his rebuttal in a timely manner, he was also entitled to the funds he received. Army Regulation...
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 | 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-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 | CY2002 | 2002082997C070215
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that the Board’s recommendation failed to address his entitlement to back Special Duty Assignment Pay (SDAP); his overall leave entitlement to include the 30 days of leave he sold during early February 1999; readjustment pay; a waiver of Serviceman’s Group Life Insurance (SGLI) premium payments not offered by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). The DFAS leave computation for the reinstated period showed that the applicant lost 38.5 days of leave....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002328
The applicant requests payment of his student loans per his 2010 California Army National Guard (CAARNG) Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) contract. He signed a Selected Reserve ARNG SLRP incentive addendum on 9 April 2010 with the CAARNG. He was not authorized to receive the SLRP incentive because he had previously received an SLRP incentive from the USAR.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072636C070403
The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the US Army Reserve (USAR) on 23 August 1999, under the ROTC scholarship Cadet Program with prior military service. It stated that the applicant was disenrolled from the ROTC Program on 9 November 2002, under the provisions of Army Regulation 145-1, paragraph 3-43a(1). Public Law 92-453 authorizes the waiver of erroneous payments of pay and allowances to former members or civilian employees.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120014144
Finance instructed me to submit the request and if I was not entitled to receive FSA, Finance would not authorize funding. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for full remission or cancellation of a debt in the amount of $28,554.80. The available records show the applicant received erroneous payments of FSA, COLA, HDP, and BAH.