RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  23 August 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060016093 


	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.  


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Ms. Yvonne Foskey

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Lester Echols

Chairperson

Mr. John T. Meixell

Member

Mr. Richard T. Dunbar

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, in effect, allocation of a Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) with an index of "O" vice an index of "9". 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he is attempting to receive COLA at the proper rate for the period from April 2002 through July 2004.  He states that during this period, he was receiving separate rations while residing in the barracks with an index of "9".  However, he believes he was entitled to receive COLA with an index of "0" due to performing shift work.  He states this error was realized and brought to the attention of his former unit command (B Company, 1st Military Intelligence Battalion) in January of 2005, and that during his 
out-processing from his unit, he was informed he would be paid the COLA owed if he obtained a signature from the appropriate authority within the chain of his command.  However, as a sergeant it was beyond his power to demand and force his commander to provide him with the memorandum at the time.  

3.  The applicant also states, in effect, that in November 2005, a memorandum was finally processed through the 8th Finance in Germany and some of the Soldiers began to receive the money they were entitled to.  However, his name was left off of the memorandum because he was no longer assigned to the unit.  He contacted the Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) out of service claims office once he realized the problem could no longer be fixed by his former unit and worked with a DFAS official during the period April through October 2006 in order to correct this problem.  He states that to the best of his knowledge, this DFAS official was informed by someone from the Wiesbaden finance office that he was entitled to the difference in COLA; however, DFAS was unable to process the paperwork required to pay him because he did not have a memorandum authorizing such an action.  After contacting the finance department and requesting a memorandum on the applicant's behalf, the DFAS official was informed that an investigation would be conducted to determine the applicant’s entitlement to the COLA rate with an index of "0".  The investigation concluded the applicant was in fact entitled to the higher allocated COLA rate and a memorandum was provided authorizing a COLA rate with the index of "0" for the period of August 2004 through March 2005, for which the applicant had already been paid the higher COLA rate during his out processing.  The applicant further states that he has exhausted all efforts within his chain of command and he hopes that the Board can correct this problem.



4.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application:  Self-Authored Statement; Separation Document (DD Form 214); DFAS Letter, dated 10 October 2006; Personnel Action (DA Form 4187); 1st Military Intelligence Battalion (Aerial Exploitation) Memorandum, dated 20 September 2006; Inspector General (IG) Action Request (DA Form 1559); Rear Detachment, 1st Military Intelligence Battalion Memorandum, dated 3 November 2005; and Headquarters, 205th Military Intelligence Brigade Memorandum, dated 
17 November 2005.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's records shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 8 June 2001.  He was trained in, awarded and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 98C (Signal Intelligence Analyst), and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was sergeant (SGT).  

2.  On 7 June 2005, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFAD) under the provisions of paragraph 4, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of completion of required active service.  The DD Form 214 he was issued upon his separation shows that he completed 4 years of active service and that he held the rank of SGT upon his separation.

3.  On 3 November 2005, the Rear Detachment, 1st Military Intelligence (MI) Battalion Commander provided a memorandum to the Commander of Bravo Detachment, 8th Finance Battalion, in which he requested a change of COLA rate from 9 to 0 for the Soldier's listed due to shift work, effective 1 April 2005.  He further stated that all requests were late due the command having to thoroughly research each legitimate case to verify if the Soldier was entitled.  The applicant's name is not included on the list of Soldier's authorized this COLA rate change.  

4.  On 17 November 2005, the Headquarters, 205th MI Brigade Commander submitted a Letter of Lateness for COLA Change to the Commander, Bravo Detachment, 8th Finance Battalion, in which she stated she was requesting a change to the COLA index rate from 9 to 0 for the Soldiers who were receiving full BAS due to shift work.  She stated that they were uncertain at the time about the requirements to submit a separate request to change the Soldier's COLA rate.  


5.  On 20 September 2006, the 1st Military Intelligence Battalion, Senior Human Resources Sergeant prepared a memorandum informing the DFAS that the applicant was single and living in Off-Post Housing during the period 31 August 2004 through 31 March 2005, and was therefore authorized COLA Rate 0.

6.  On 10 October 2006, the DFAS Claims Examiner responded to the applicant's inquiry regarding his claim for full rations and COLA for the without dependent vice COLA at the barracks rate.  This official stated that it had been verified with his Army unit in Germany that he was authorized separate rations and that he had received separate rations without meal deductions during the period 26 April 2002 through 7 June 2005, the date of his separation.  He also stated the applicant had gotten COLA at the barracks rate from 5 February 2002 through 
31 July 2004, and the without dependent rate from 1 August 2004 through 
18 March 2005.  He concluded by informing the applicant that if he believed he was entitled to COLA at the without dependent rate vice the barracks rate for the period 26 April 2002 through 31 July 2004, he should apply to this Board.

7.  The applicant provides a copy of Personnel Action (DA Form 4187) that was prepared on him requesting for start of Basic Allowance for Substance (BAS).  It states in Item IV (Remarks) that the applicant was authorized separate rations due to shift work by verbal orders of the command effective 25 April 2002.  The applicant signed this document with his signature on 25 April 2002.  However, Section V (Certification/Approval/Disapproval) had not been completed by his commander verifying or recommending approval of this entitlement.  

8.  Army Regulation 37-104-4 (Military Pay and Allowances Policy)  Defines Army-unique military pay policy for entitlements, allotments, and deductions outlined in the Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation Military Pay, Policy, and Procedures Volume 7A (DODFMR, Vol 7A) and 
DOD 7000.14-R.  Chapter 14 provides the policy and entitlement provisions for station allowances.  The regulation states, in effect, that proper authorization and documentation for COLA will be submitted by the appropriate unit commander.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he should have received COLA at an index rate of "0" vice "9" during the period April 2002 through July 2004 was carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was entitled to a COLA rate with an index of "0" during the time period 1 August 2004 through 31 March 2005, and that he received payment at that index rate.  It also contains a Memorandum from the applicant's unit commander, which provided the names of those Soldiers of the unit who were entitled to a change to their COLA rate from "9" to "0" due to shift work while residing in the barracks.  The applicant's name is not included on this list and there is no COLA documentation from the applicant's unit commander that ever approved the higher COLA index rate for the applicant during the period in question.  Therefore, absent any command verification of this entitlement, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.

3.  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.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___LE  __  __JTM __  __RTD __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




_____Lester Echols_______
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060016093
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
2007/08/23
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
HD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
2005/06/07
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR635-200 . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
Ms. Mitrano
ISSUES         1.
COLA
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.