Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000185C070205
Original file (20060000185C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:      25 July 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060000185


      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. Allen L. Raub                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne Douglas               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Peguine M. Taylor             |     |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 interest on the money he
deposited to the Soldiers Savings Program.

2.  The applicant states that he received only the $100.00 per month that
he deposited in the Soldiers Savings Program while in Vietnam and that when
he enrolled in the program he was told that it was to be tax free with
interest compounded at 10% quarterly.  He goes on to state that others got
their money with interest compounded at 10% quarterly; however he did not.
He further states that he was told that he could apply for his money
anytime after he left the service.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents with his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 9 September 1969.  The application submitted in this case was
received on 30 December 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 Atlanta, Georgia, on 1 November 1966 for a period of 3
years.  He completed his training at Fort Riley, Kansas, and was
transferred to Vietnam on 29 July 1967.  He was assigned to Troop F, 2nd
Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, 196th Light Infantry Brigade for
duty as an armor recon specialist.

4.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 16 March 1968 and was
reclassified to military occupational specialty 76Y30 (unit supply
specialist) on 18 March 1968.

5.  He departed Vietnam on 29 July 1968 and was transferred to Fort Hood,
Texas.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 11 March 1969.
6.  On 9 September 1969, he was honorably released from active duty
(REFRAD) to enter or return to college, university, or equivalent
institution.  He had served 2 years, 10 months and 9 days of total active
service.

7.  The applicant again enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 June 1971 and
after completing his training as an avionics communication equipment
repairman he was transferred to Vietnam.  He served in Vietnam from 23 July
1972 to 22 February 1973 and was then transferred to Fort Cambell,
Kentucky, where he remained until he honorably discharged on 13 June 1975
due to the expiration of his term of service (ETS).

8.  A review of his records fails to show any indication that he enrolled
in the Soldiers Savings Program or the amount that he contributed or
withdrew from the program.  There is also no indication that he made
inquiries to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) in Cleveland
regarding his account.

9.  The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmans Deposit Fund Account, now known as the
Savings Deposit Program was enacted by The Act of 14 August 1966, which
authorized members of the uniformed services who were serving on a
designated permanent duty assignment outside the United States, or its
possessions, to deposit their un-allotted current pay and allowances for
savings purposes.  Vietnam was one of the designated areas at the time.
Amounts up to $10,000 could be deposited with interest accrual at the rate
of 10% per annum, compounded at 2.5% quarterly.  Interest on funds
deposited ceased to accrue 90 days after the individual departed the
designated theater of operations.  Soldiers could remove their money from
the program by sending a letter to the DFAS.  That program was phased out
effective 30 June 1974 in conjunction with the withdrawal from Vietnam but
was again restarted in connection with the Persian Gulf conflict and is
still in effect.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show 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 applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with
his application or the evidence of record that he did not receive the
benefits he was authorized to receive in conjunction with the Savings
Deposit Program.

3.  Inasmuch as the Board is not an investigative agency and since the
applicant has provided no evidence to substantiate his claim of some 37
years ago, there appears to be no basis to grant his request.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 13 June 1971; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 12 June 1974.  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

___LD___  __ALR___  __PMT _  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.




                                  _____Allen L. Raub _________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060000185                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060725                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |( DENY)                                 |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES                  |283/SDP                                 |
|1.128.0000              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00706

    Original file (BC 2013 00706.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00706 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reimbursed his $2,200 contribution to the Post-Vietnam Veterans’ Education Assistance Program (VEAP). Participants in VEAP could stop, restart, increase, and decrease the allotment only while serving on active duty. Accordingly, we recommend...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100030195

    Original file (20100030195.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant further states that when he left West Germany, he signed papers reporting his poor pay and was told to get on the jet and that his pay would be straightened out at Fort Dix, New Jersey. __________X______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100030195 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016262

    Original file (20110016262.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    BOARD DATE: 17 April 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110016262 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his request to show correction of his military records to show he had enrolled in the direct deposit program and to be paid any monies owed to him regardless of his missing payroll records and the 1940 Barring Act. Incorporated herein by reference are military records, which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054223C070420

    Original file (2001054223C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: The evidence of record disclosed that the applicant rendered a sworn statement and an affidavit, both of which he knew to be false, indicating that a fraud investigator from MBNA America...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01298

    Original file (BC-2003-01298.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    During this timeframe, DFAS informed the MPF the applicant could not receive a 2002 TSP payment since his request for a bonus to be distributed in TSP was not established until 2003. The applicant requests a CSB installment payment in the amount of $10,000 be applied retroactively to his TSP account effective 23 Oct 02, along with any interest he may have accrued. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058527C070421

    Original file (2001058527C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states, in effect, that the subject ROS was initiated 8 months after he was relieved of his duties as Brigade Food Service Officer (FSO) on 4 February 1997; that his replacement noted a discrepancy in March 1997 when attempting to reconcile DD Forms 1544 (Cash Meal Payment Sheet, or Cash Sheets), but took no action until 7 months later; that his replacement assumed responsibility for Brigade food service operations and all Cash Sheets; that the non-commissioned officer (NCO)...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019972

    Original file (20110019972.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He stated: * The applicant was placed in the position with no formal training * Renting the armory was common knowledge throughout his chain of command * Contracts were actually being executed * CPT RM's allegations were based on hearsay; the applicant never made a false official statement * CPT RM was not in the applicant's chain of command * The applicant knew he should not have collected cash but he did as he was told by the previous NCO; plus all the cash was accounted for * The...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002791

    Original file (20140002791.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). A review of his military personnel records failed to reveal any evidence that he was recommended for, authorized, or awarded the CIB. The applicant contends his records should be corrected to show he was awarded the CIB because he served with the B-20 Mobile Strike Force, 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne) in the RVN; he was involved in several incidents that qualify him for the CIB; and he was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004429C070208

    Original file (20040004429C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The former service member’s military records are not available to the Board for review. That same payment work sheet indicates that the applicant had only one allotment being deducted from his pay at the time of discharge. The evidence, which is available to the Board, indicates that the former service member discontinued his Class F allotment in December 1943 and that the amount of the allotment apparently continued to be deducted from his account through November 1944.

  • CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 1999-028

    Original file (1999-028.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On July 22, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the applicant’s request for relief be dismissed “without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and because effective relief cannot be granted by the BCMR.” The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant’s request was similar to those of several other BCMR applicants who had alleged that “the Coast Guard failed to take timely action on an allotment request to redeposit VEAP funds prior to the cut-off...