Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005447C070206
Original file (20050005447C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Approved



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            04 APRIL 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050005447


      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             |
|     |Mr. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Anderholm               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jose Martinez                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette McCants              |     |Member               |

      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 that his report of separation (DD Form 214) be
corrected by deleting any reference to separation pay.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his DD Form 214 incorrectly
reflects that he received $22,197.24 in separation pay; however, he never
received any separation pay and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is
recouping his separation pay from his compensation payments.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 5 November 1991.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 28 March 2005.

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 limitations 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.  He enlisted in the Regular Army in San Juan, Puerto Rico on 17 October
1978 for a period of 3 years and training as a telecommunications center
operator.  He completed his one-station unit training at Fort Gordon,
Georgia, and remained on active duty through a series of continuous
reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 February 1990.

4.  On 3 December 1990, while serving in Saudi Arabia, he extended his
enlistment for a period of 9 months to reach the retention ineligibility
point for his pay grade.  His new expiration of term of service was
established as 5 November 1991.

5.  On 5 November 1991, he was honorably discharged in the pay grade of E-5
due to the expiration of his term of service (ETS).  He had served 13 years
and 19 days of total active service and was ineligible to reenlist due to
exceeding the retention ineligibility point for his grade (13 years).  He
agreed to serve in the United States Army Reserve for a period of 3 years
as a condition of receiving separation pay.  However, it was determined
that he did not qualify for Reserve Component affiliation.

6.  His DD Form 214 prepared at the time of his discharge indicates that he
was entitled to separation pay of $22,197.24.  However, his discharge
orders make no indication of his entitlement to separation pay.

7.  A review of the applicant’s records reveals the presence of a VA Form
     70-3101 (Request for Information) requesting to know the amount of
separation pay indicated on the applicant’s DD Form 214.  It also indicates
that the applicant states that he never received any separation pay.  The
inquiry was related to a claim for disability.

8.  In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained
from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) – Denver.  Officials
at that agency indicate that the applicant’s records show that he was not
paid separation pay at the time of separation and that he was entitled to
receive it.  However, records at that agency also indicate that the Board
also acted on a request from the applicant in 1995; however, it could not
be determined what the nature of that request entailed.  Officials at that
agency further opined that it was possible that his claim in 1995 to the
Board was for the separation pay and since the applicant had not proved or
disproved his claim, it should be denied.  It should be noted that the
applicant’s application was interpreted by officials at the DFAS to be a
claim for payment of separation pay instead of having the separation pay
deleted from his DD Form 214.  The advisory opinion was forwarded to the
applicant for comment and to date no response has been received by the
staff of the Board.

9.  A search of historical records maintained by this Board has failed to
reveal any Board action being taken on a previous application pertaining to
the applicant.

10.  Department of the Army Circular 635-92-1 outlines the eligibility
criteria for separation pay.  It states, in pertinent part, that one-half
separation pay is authorized for soldiers who are not fully qualified for
retention and are denied continuation.  Soldiers who are eligible for
reenlistment/continuation and elect to separate on their ETS are not
authorized separation pay.

11.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 provides the separation codes and narrative
reasons for separation that are to be placed on the DD Form 214 at the time
of separation based on the circumstances surrounding the separation.  It
states, in pertinent part, that the separation code “JBK” will be used for
Regular Army enlisted personnel ineligible for, barred from, or otherwise
denied reenlistment who are separated on completion of enlistment.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that he did not receive the separation pay
he was authorized appears to have merit.  Verification from the DFAS
indicates that he was not paid separation pay at the time of separation.

2.  A search of historical documents maintained by the Board has failed to
show that the Board authorized payment of his separation pay subsequent to
his discharge.

3.  Inasmuch as the applicant is receiving compensation from the VA and
since he has never been paid separation pay, it would be in the interest of
justice to remove all indication from his DD Form 214 that relate to
separation pay.

BOARD VOTE:

___JA___  ___JM __  ___JM __  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL 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 concerned be corrected by removing all indications from the
remarks section of his DD Form 214 showing his entitlement to separation
pay in the amount of $22,197.24.





                            _____James Anderholm__________
                                      CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050005447                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060404                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19911105                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR.635-200, CH 4                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ETS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |(GRANT)                                 |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |189/CORR 214                            |
|1.110.0000              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017064

    Original file (20070017064.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057389C070420

    Original file (2001057389C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, the separation pay that he should have received in 1992, or barring that, his record be corrected to show that he did not receive that separation pay. The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged on 7 December 1991. The DFAS included a copy of a LES dated in March 1992 that shows a separation pay of $9079.02.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021578

    Original file (20100021578.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests payment of retroactive stop loss special pay (RSLSP) from April 2006 to January 2007. It states that RSLSP is a special pay for military members to include members of the RC, former and retired members under the jurisdiction of the Secretary who while serving on active duty at any time from 11 September 2001 to 30 September 2009 their enlistment or period of obligated service was involuntarily extended or whose established date of separation, release from active duty...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069426C070402

    Original file (2002069426C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that based on his assigned SPD code he was only granted one-half separation pay based on 16 years of active duty service. However, the evidence of record clearly establishes, as evidenced by his separation order and other separation documents, that he was separated by reason of ETS, under the provisions of chapter 4, Army Regulation 635-200, which should have been the separation authority entered in his separation document. Lacking independent evidence that...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022982

    Original file (20100022982.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests payment of Retroactive Stop Loss Special Pay (RSLSP) for 15 instead of 3 months. The form states in accordance with Military Personnel Message 03-40, subject: Reserve Component (RC) Stop Loss Procedures for the ARNG, and under authority of executive orders and having not voluntarily extended his ETS date of 23 October 2004, he was hereby involuntarily extended to 24 December 2031 as a member of the MIARNG. However, after processing his claim, he was authorized...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011496

    Original file (20140011496.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    It does not appear from the record that DFAS is withholding VSI payments because the applicant is now receiving VA disability compensation. The statute authorizing disability severance pay provides that, "the amount of disability severance pay received under this section shall be deducted from any compensation for the same disability to which the former member of the armed forces or his dependents become entitled under any law administered by [VA]." However, the DFAS determination as to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002143

    Original file (20090002143.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant married the FSM in "1995," but he did not inform DFAS within a year of the marriage, so the applicant was not eligible. DFAS issued the applicant two payments which were later collected because she was not entitled to an SBP annuity because the FSM was not married at the time of his retirement and had not elected coverage for her within one year of their marriage. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the FSM be corrected by showing that...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003332

    Original file (20150003332.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    He stated/acknowledged he: * was a prior service applicant who had completed the last 3 consecutive years in the ARNG; he held the primary MOS for which he was reenlisting/extending * was extending in a valid position and the critical skill MOS of 74C for which Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) had authorized the SLRP and he must remain in the contracted MOS for the entire period of his extension/reenlistment contract * had 1 loan in the amount of $11,000; the total amount of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010514

    Original file (20070010514.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 29 July 1983; a copy of DA Form 2139 (Military Pay Voucher), dated 29 July 1983; and a copy of an undated Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) letter responding to the applicant's DD Form 827 (Application for Arrears in Pay), dated 3 July 2007. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9609362C070209

    Original file (9609362C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    He states he outprocessed on 4 December 1991 and departed on 55 days of transition leave and that he was paid in December and January. His DD Form 214 indicates his separation date as 4 December 1991, that he did not contribute to the VEAP and that he was paid for 60 days of accrued leave. As such he is entitled to have the Driver’s Badge reflected on his separation document and item 15a (VEAP contribution) and item 16 (days accrued leave paid) should be corrected.