Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017582C070206
Original file (20050017582C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        18 July 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050017582


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine I. Fields           |     |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 he be paid the severance pay he was told he
would receive.  He also, in effect, questions the entry in item 18 (SGLI
Coverage) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty).

2.  The applicant states he never received any severance pay.  Also, he was
never told how to file for his Veterans Administration (VA) benefits.

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 8 March 1985.  The application submitted in this case is
dated       30 November 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.  The applicant enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program on 10 September
1984.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 December 1984.  On 5 December
1984, he completed a VA Form 29-8286 (Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance
Election) and elected the maximum amount of insurance coverage ($35,000).

4.  On 30 January 1985, a Medical Evaluation Board referred the applicant
to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for a diagnosis of metatarsal stress
reaction, right foot.

5.  On 4 February 1985, the applicant signed a DA Form 664 (Service
Member’s Statement Concerning Application for Compensation from the
Veterans Administration (VA Form 21-526e)).  In item 3, the applicant
acknowledged, “I am being processed for separation from the Army and have
been advised that I am entitled to file an application for compensation
from the Veterans Administration.” He indicated that he had filed an
application for such compensation on VA Form 21-526e.  An original VA Form
21-526e is filed in the applicant’s personnel records.
6.  The applicant’s PEB packet is not available.  Military Personnel Center
Message date/time group 261334Z February 1985 approved his discharge with a
disability rating of 20 percent and severance pay in the grade of E-1.  The
message also stated that, although the authority for discharge was
disability separation with severance pay, in computing pay for disability
severance pay a member with less than 6 month’s service cannot receive
severance pay.  The applicant could apply to the VA for disability
compensation.

7.  On 8 March 1985, the applicant was discharged by reason of physical
disability.  Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his DD Form 214
contains the entry, “PHYSICAL DISABILITY WITH SEVERANCE PAY.”  He had
completed 3 months and 5 days of creditable active service and 5 months and
 29 days of service for pay.

8.  Item 18 of the applicant’s DD Form 214 contains the entry, “AMOUNT
$35,000.”

9.  The SGLI (Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance) is a VA program.  SGLI is
in effect for 120 days after an individual separates from active duty or
the Reserves.

10.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1212 (Disability Severance Pay),
subsection 1212(a) provides the computation of disability severance pay.
Subsection 1212(b) states that, for the purposes of subsection (a), a part
of a year of active service that is six months or more is counted as a
whole year, and a part of a year that is less than six months is
disregarded.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The narrative reason for the applicant’s separation was listed as
“physical disability with severance pay” only because that was the closest
narrative reason comparable to his situation.  There is no narrative reason
of “physical disability without severance pay.”   However, by law he was
not entitled to severance pay since he had completed less than six months
of service.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was counseled on how to
apply for VA benefits.  An error might have been made, in that an original
VA Form   21-526e is filed in the applicant’s personnel records.
Nevertheless, the applicant had signed two forms pertaining to VA benefits
which indicated he was counseled concerning his entitlement to those
benefits and knew the form to be used for requesting those benefits.

3.  The entry in item 18 of the applicant’s DD Form 214 merely indicates he
had previously elected insurance coverage in the amount of $35,000.  That
coverage would have been valid for 120 days after his separation and
therefore was an important entry on his DD Form 214.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 8 March 1985; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on           7 March 1988.  The applicant did not file within the 3-
year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation
or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__le____  __phm___  __eif___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board
determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  __Lester Echols_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050017582                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060718                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |128.08                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106804C070208

    Original file (2004106804C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states that, on his application for Civil Service Retirement, which is dated 30 October 1989, the FSM stated that his military retirement pay was being processed. The letter informed the applicant in part, "This is to notify you that, having completed the required years of service, you will be eligible for retired pay on application at age 60…" It also informed him, in paragraph 4, "Reserve soldiers who have completed 20 years of qualifying service for retirement may be...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002274

    Original file (20150002274.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    d. She was never sent an application or given any other information. She contacted the SGLI office requesting they grant her an exception to submit an application for VGLI. The available evidence shows her 20-year letter states in paragraph 5, "Reserve Soldiers who have completed 20 years of qualifying service for retirement may be eligible for the Veteran's Group Life Insurance Program.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013998

    Original file (20080013998.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests correction of Item 32 (Remarks) of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show his correct Social Security Number (SSN) and that he received a lump sum payment made for 9 days of accrued leave in the amount of $49.50 instead of the $10,000.00 shown. His DD Form 398 and DA Form 3027 listed his SSN as ***-**-9608. Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show his correct SSN.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200107

    Original file (0200107.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00107 INDEX CODE 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) election for “NO” coverage, dated 10 February 1999, be honored and he be reimbursed for the monthly premiums deducted from his pay for SGLI coverage of $250,000 since 1 April 2001. The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803510

    Original file (9803510.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03510 INDEX CODE: 128.10 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted a waiver of a Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) debt in the amount of $359.00. After reviewing the evidence of record, we believe that the debt he incurred for payments of SGLI was unjust. VAUGHN E....

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018524

    Original file (20130018524.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests the records of her deceased son, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he remained on active duty on the date of death rather than placed on the temporary disability retired list (TDRL). In no case shall a Service member be retired after his or her death or before completion of a required line of duty determination. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 (Public Law 107-107), dated 28 December 2001, and codified at Title...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017538

    Original file (20080017538.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's military records show she enlisted in the Puerto Rico ARNG (PRARNG), in pay grade E-4, on 4 November 1998, for 8 years. The evidence of record shows that the applicant made an election to terminate SGLI coverage for her spouse in September 2003. With respect to her claim, there is no evidence in the record and the applicant did not provide any substantiating evidence that shows there is a debt for $4,500.00 or that this amount was deducted from her severance pay.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074969C070403

    Original file (2002074969C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states, through counsel, that the settlement agreement, which was incorporated into the 29 July 1999 divorce decree, required the FSM to elect former spouse SBP coverage. 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 was participating in the SBP or was still on active duty and had not yet made an SBP election. That all of the Department of the Army records related to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090860C070212

    Original file (2003090860C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant provides a letter to her from the U. S. Army Reserve Personnel Command dated 3 April 2003; the FSM's death certificate; the DD Form 1883 (Survivor Benefit Plan Election Certificate) with counseling letter; the FSM's notification of eligibility for retired pay at age 60 (his 20-year letter); a North Carolina Army National Guard (NCARNG) letter dated 14 November 1999; the FSM's Retired Reserve certificate dated 12 August 1988; the FSM's Honorable Discharge certificate dated 12...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1997 | 9700031

    Original file (9700031.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant. The applicant has requested that his record be corrected to retain previous election (no coverage) and that he be reimbursed premiums deducted as a result of the 1 Apr 96 increase in...