RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 15 JULY 2004
DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003098364
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.
| |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | |Director |
| |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | |Senior Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Mr. Roger Able | |Chairperson |
| |Mr. James Anderholm | |Member |
| |Ms. Marla Troup | |Member |
The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.
The Board considered the following evidence:
Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.
Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests, in effect, that information relating to receipt
of disability severance pay in item 18 (Remarks) on his 1999 Department of
Defense Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be
deleted.
2. The applicant states he did not receive any disability pay at the time
of his separation. He states he did, however, receive more than $2000.00
for payment of his unused leave. He states that he is now receiving
disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs, but his
payments are being withheld pending recoupment of the disability severance
pay annotated on his separation document.
3. The applicant provides a statement from the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service (DFAS)-Indianapolis confirming he did not receive any
disability severance pay.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 7 June 1999. The application submitted in this case is
dated
3 October 2003.
2. 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. This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so. In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.
3. Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant entered
active duty on 17 June 1995.
4. On 9 April 1999 he underwent an informal Physical Evaluation Board,
which concluded that his bilateral foot problems were congenital and
existed prior to his entry on active duty, and were not aggravated by his
military service. The board concluded, however, that his foot problems did
render him unfit for continued service and recommended that he be
discharged “without disability benefits.”
5. The applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the
informal Physical Evaluation Board and waived his right to a formal
hearing.
6. The findings and recommendation of the informal board were approved and
on 7 June 1999 the applicant was honorably discharged by reason of a
physical disability which “existed prior to service.” Item 18 (Remarks) on
his separation document, however, contains the statement “DISABILITY
SEVERANCE PAY-- $10612.80.”
7. The statement from DFAS, submitted in support of the applicant’s
petition, confirms that the applicant did not receive Disability Severance
Pay or Readjustment Pay at the time of his separation, although he did
receive a lump sum payment for his unused leave. They noted that
“personnel” prepared the separation document and that it might not reflect
the right information regarding monies due or received at the time of
separation.
8. Separation without benefits occurs if the unfitting disability existed
prior to service, was not permanently aggravated by military service, and
the member has less than 8 years of Active Service (active duty days); or
the disability was incurred while the Soldier was absent without leave or
while engaging in an act of misconduct or willful negligence.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
The evidence confirms that the applicant did not receive any disability
severance pay as part of his 1999 separation action. As such, the
statement “DISABILITY SEVERANCE PAY-- $10612.80.” should be deleted from
his separation document.
BOARD VOTE:
____RA__ ___JA __ ___MT___ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for relief and to excuse failure to timely file. As a
result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the
individual be corrected by deleting the statement “DISABILITY SEVERANCE PAY-
- $10612.80.” from his separation document.
_____ Roger Able______
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR2003098364 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON |YYYYMMDD |
|DATE BOARDED |20040715 |
|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. |108.00 |
|2. | |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03098773C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The evidence confirms that the applicant was actually paid for 7.5 days of unused leave at the time of his 1984 separation from the Army and not the 26.5 days recorded in item 17 of his separation document. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing in item 17 of his 1984...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020581
His DD Form 214 shows an entitlement to separation pay; however, he didn't receive the money. They do not show an entitlement to/payment of separation pay. There is no evidence of record that shows the applicant received payment of separation pay at the time of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071141C070402
Paragraph 32-3 contains time limitations for requesting waivers and it states, in pertinent part, that a claim of the United States against a soldier or former soldier, arising out of an erroneous payment of pay and allowances may be considered for waiver within 3 years from the date of discovery, when collection of the erroneous payment would be against equity and good conscience, and not in the best interest of the United States. Thus, the Board finds that the applicant’s debt to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011262
DFAS advised that the applicant could apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for a decision regarding the entitlement to Full Separation Pay. In addition, the evidence of record shows that DFAS confirmed the applicant is not entitled to nor did he receive separation pay. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. amending the additional instructions of Headquarters, Joint Readiness...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015049
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant provides: * Congressional correspondence * A copy of her discharge order * Various letters from the DFAS office * Two letters CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. She also provided a letter from the DFAS office, addressed to her Member in Congress on 20 June 2011, which shows the following: * The applicant had an indebtedness to the Department of Defense (DOD) in the original amount of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018242
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 May 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090018242 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The SPD code on the applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged for a condition that existed prior to service. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by deleting the entry "SEPARATION PAY - - $7,035.60" from item 18 of his DD Form 214.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017064
The DA Form 4187-E, dated 13 December 1993, and DFAS Leave and Earnings Statement show the applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-4 prior to his separation from active duty. The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to paying the applicant for 25.5 days accrued leave if the audit of his records shows he has already been paid...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01752
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Over several months she noted improvement with Zoloft, which when discontinued in December1998, she again became depressedand it was reintroduced.In June 1999, she became overwhelmed by a move to a new duty station and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711097
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 considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059803C070421
He provides as supporting evidence his Medical Condition – Physical Profile Record, DA Form 3349, dated 8 September 1971 (which he annotated that he was on light duty for the past 7 years); his notification of Physical Evaluation Board Action dated 15 January 1973 (which he annotated that the term “unfit for active service” should be changed to “unabled because of physical disability,” that his 50 percent disability rating should have read 100 percent, and questioned why he did not receive...