| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ernest W. Lutz | Member | |
| Mr. Larry C. Bergquist | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he receive additional credit for service in 1968.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he had prior service in 1968. He also contends that he is being paid for only 15 years of active service and that he should be paid for 20 years of active service. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 for the period ending 13 November 1970; a DD Form 214 for the period ending 31 July 1994; Leave and Earnings Statements; a copy of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record); and a Retiree Account Statement.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant was inducted on 6 May 1969. Item 8a (Prior Military Service) on his DD Form 47 (Record of Induction) shows "No." He served as a general vehicle repairman in Vietnam and was released from active duty on
13 November 1970. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 August 1979, served as a legal specialist and was retired in the rank of staff sergeant on 31 July 1994.
The applicant's retirement orders show he was placed on the retired list effective 1 August 1994. These orders show his voluntary retirement was based on
16 years, 5 months, and 24 days of active duty service. These orders also show that his basic pay was based on 20 years, 11 months, and 21 days for pay.
Conversation with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service – Cleveland Center (DFAS-CL) on 28 October 2003 verified the applicant is being paid retired pay as an E-6 with 20 years of service for pay computed based on 16 years, 5 months, and 24 days of active duty service as of date of retirement.
There is no evidence in the applicant's service personnel records which shows that he served in the Army in 1968.
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. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
2. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's contention that he had prior service in 1968. The applicant's induction record, dated 6 May 1969, shows that he had no prior service. Therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for additional credit for service in 1968.
3. The Board considered the applicant's contention that he is being paid for only 15 years of active service and that he should be paid for 20 years of active service. However, the applicant's retirement orders show that his retired pay is based on 16 years, 5 months and 24 days of active service and his basic pay is based on 20 years, 11 months, and 21 days. There is no evidence to show he served on active duty for 20 years. DFAS-CL verified that he is being paid retired pay as an E-6 with 20 years of service for pay computed based on 16 years, 5 months, and 24 days of active duty service as of date of retirement.
4. 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
CLG___ EWL_____ LCB_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003087720 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031030 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 113.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017302
The applicant states: * the Army paid him for six years of retirement pay, but he is owed payment for ten years * he entered a buy-out program (Reserve Special Separation Pay (RSSP)) on 15 October 1994; a condition for entering the buy-out program required he submit his retirement papers * he believes the U.S. Army lost his retirement papers and he was not paid his retirement when he reached age 60 on 19 March 2002 * he would like to receive the additional four years retirement pay that he...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00491 INDEX CODE 137.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His child-only Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage be terminated upon his retirement from the Air Force. The member was found competent for pay and records on 20 January 1995. The AFPC/DPPTR evaluation is at Exhibit...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011521C070208
The applicant states his retired pay was calculated based on 2325 points instead of the correct 2550 points. An NGB Form 23 (Retirement Credits Record) reveals the applicant earned 2200 retirement points through 1 March 1973. c. A Retirement Points Accounting System (RPAS) Summary Points Inquiry, dated 8 March 2005, shows that the applicant had 1805 retirement points from 24 February 1953 through 23 February 1968. A review of the three available retirement points documents in...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01655
A week after the divorce from her husband, she took the divorce decree to Offutt AFB to finish the paperwork for DFAS for the annuity of her former husband’s retirement. In support of her application, applicant provided personal statements from both her and her daughter, copies of her 2 Jun 01 letter to DFAS, a 2 Jun 01 letter to her former husband, their divorce decree, a certified letter to the Director of DFAS from her attorney, her former husband’s death certificate, and his retirement...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014270
The applicant requests, in effect, that the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity election made by her deceased ex-spouse, a former service member (FSM), be changed to former spouse coverage and that she be provided an SBP annuity accordingly. Although it is unknown if the court ordered the FSM to make a former spouse SBP election, he paid the SBP/RCSBP premiums through the date of his death. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00061
Since he has been reinstated to active duty as though he never retired, he should not have been required to pay SBP premiums as an active duty member. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, we find no evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605799C070209
The applicant requests correction of the military records of her late ex-husband, the former service member (FSM) to show that he changed his SBP (Survivor Benefit Plan) election from spouse and children to former spouse subsequent to his divorce. This request had to made within 1 year from the date of the divorce. In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the SBP Board which recommended the applicants SBP election be changed from spouse and child to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067415C070402
His notification of eligibility for retired pay at age 60 (his 20-year letter) is dated 7 November 1977. Premiums are normally deducted from retired pay. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the applicant completed his DD Form 2656 on 30 September 1996 and declined, with his spouse’s concurrence, to participate in the SBP, making the debt for SBP premiums invalid.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091002C070212
The applicant requests, in effect, that the records of her deceased spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he withdrew from the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) due to being rated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) at 100 percent disabled. Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1452(g)(1) provides that a person who has elected to participate in the SBP and who is suffering from a service-connected disability rated by the VA as totally disabling and has suffered from such...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072861C070403
The applicant states that the divorce decree ordered the FSM to designate the former spouse as his SBP beneficiary. Public Law 99-661, dated 14 November 1986, permitted divorce courts to order SBP coverage (without the member’s agreement) in those cases where the member is participating in the SBP or was still on active duty and had not yet made an SBP election. That the FSM's former spouse be paid the SBP annuity retroactive to 6 June 2001, the date of the FSM's death.