| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member | |
| Mr. Bernard P. Ingold | Member |
THE BOARD ADDITIONALLY FINDS:
23. On 23 April 2003, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service – Denver Center informed the staff of the Board that paragraph 9 of the Conclusions of the original case dated 25 July 2002 (AR2002072374) indicated the Board meant to forgive recoupment of the applicant's incapacitation pay.
24. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service – Denver Center also indicated that their records showed the applicant received active duty pay for the period 1 July through 29 August 2001 and presumed that the Board intended to forgive recoupment of that pay, also.
25. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service – Denver Center pointed out that the Recommendation did not mention forgiving any debts.
THE BOARD ADDITIONALLY CONCLUDES:
12. At the time of the Board’s decision in this case, it was the intent of the Board to make the applicant’s record as administratively correct as it should properly have been at the time his records were corrected to place him on the Temporary Disability Retired List effective 1 July 2001. All due consideration was to have been taken of the civilian hospitalization expenses incurred by the applicant as a result of the Government failing to discharge him for physical disability in a timely manner.
13. In view of the additional factors in this case, the applicant is entitled to correction of his record to show he was relieved of the requirement to pay any debts he incurred as a result of the correction; specifically, debts due to the required recoupment of incapacitation pay and active duty pay.
14. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by amending the Board’s recommendation appearing in the proceedings dated 25 July 2002 to show that the applicant is relieved from the requirement to pay
any debts he incurred as a result of the correction; specifically, debts due to the required recoupment of incapacitation pay and active duty pay.
BOARD VOTE:
__jns __tl____ __bpi GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
___John N. Slone________
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2003089320 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030429 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Schneider |
| ISSUES 1. | 128.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060016402
The applicant states, in effect, that the conditions of his ROTC scholarship reimbursement of debt stated that he must either make monetary repayment or agree to be ordered to active duty, and he elected to enlist in the United States Air Force for 6 years. It also stated that the applicant's decision to breach the term of his ROTC contract by enlisting in the Air Force was a voluntary action. It further stated that the applicant's enlistment into the Air Force is not an authorized remedy...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012278
There is no indication on the applicant's enlistment contract, nor is there any other evidence of record, which shows that his enlistment in the USMC was for the purpose of fulfilling the obligation he incurred as a result of his being disenrolled from the ROTC program for breach of contract. The evidence of record shows that during the process of disenrolling the applicant from the ROTC program for breach of contract, he was afforded the opportunity to repay the debt monetarily or agree to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012535C071029
The applicant requests, in effect, a. a change to his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, to omit time lost he accumulated due to AWOL (absence without leave) and payment for this time; b. payment for 21.5 days accrued leave for which he was not paid on his discharge from the Army; c. reimbursement for taxes that were deducted from his pay at discharge; d. reimbursement for money he contributed to the Montgomery GI Bill Program which he feels he is entitled to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000314C070208
The applicant requests that her current active duty commitment and service in the United States Navy be accepted as repayment of her Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship debt. The applicant states, in effect, that she has served over 2 years of active duty in the Navy Nurse Corps and that her service in the Navy should be accepted in lieu of monetary repayment of her Army ROTC debt. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014895C071029
The applicant requests, in effect, that Item 25 (Authority for Separation), Item 26 (Separation Code) and Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his 27 July 2006 separation document be corrected. On 1 November 2006, AHRC-St. Louis published an amendment to the applicant's separation order (C-05-690868) and added additional instructions that confirmed the applicant was REFRAD based on his acceptance into the WOC program and that he was authorized to retain his SRB in accordance with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076832C070215
The evidence in this case clearly shows that the applicant was granted an advance of housing allowances to move off-post during his assignment to Korea in order to pay security deposits. As a result, the applicant did not receive his security deposit or unused rent back, yet is being held responsible for re-paying the government for his first advance of housing allowances. Accordingly, the Board finds that when the Army directed the applicant to move and authorized him a second advance of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061590C070421
He also stated in his request that he was currently serving a remaining active duty obligation of 4 years for his fully funded graduate school at Cornell University. The applicant’s records contain a copy of Headquarters, US Army Missile Command Orders Number 171-7, dated 5 September 1991, which is an amendment to Orders Number 168-14, dated 30 August 1991. Army Regulation 350-100 establishes guidance on active duty service obligations (ADSOs) for officers, defines how service obligations...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070259C070402
On 17 November 1999, the applicant waived his right to a hearing and declined expeditious call to active duty. More than one year passed between the time he agreed to repay the ROTC scholarship benefits and his enlistment in the Regular Army. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by amending the applicant’s ROTC scholarship contract to show that he would satisfy the service obligation under the original terms of the ROTC contract as a Regular Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086544C070212
In November 2000, BAH-I was repaid to the applicant for the period 2 August to 30 November 2000, totaling $4,385.94, causing the applicant to receive a large mid-month and end-of-month (EOM) for November payment totaling $8,292.43 ($5,591.47 + $2,174.54). He was paid for BAH-II from July 21 through 30 November 2000, totaling $3,135.60, leaving him with a debt of $3,831.61 (-$2,174.54 - $4,792 +$3,135.60). The evidence shows that his account should have been closed out on 30 November 2000...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016389
The applicant's counsel also contends that the ABCMR failed to give the applicant any credit against her alleged debt for "good" years she completed in the Reserves as required by regulation. The applicant contends that her request that the recoupment actions by the DFAS for her STRAP debt be terminated should be reconsidered. The applicant's counsel's contention that the ABCMR failed to give the applicant any credit against her alleged debt for "good" years she completed in the Reserves...