Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001852C071029
Original file (20070001852C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Approved



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        18 July 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070001852


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


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John N. Slone                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. William Blakely               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David K. Haasenritter         |     |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 separation program designator (SPD)
code on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty) be changed to a code that would not require recoupment of the
unearned portion of his Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) or that the debt
be waived.

2.  The applicant states that he is unable to pay the debt due to his
service-connected disabilities.

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 for the period ending 13 April
2005; a DD Form 2789 (Waiver/Remission of Indebtedness Application); a
Reserve/Guard Bonus Recoupment Worksheet; a Defense Finance and Accounting
Service (DFAS) letter, dated 28 December 2006; and a DFAS letter, dated 22
December 2006.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant served in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the U. S. Army Reserve on 22 October 1994.
According to a DFAS letter, dated 28 December 2006, he reenlisted on
     13 February 2003 for 6 years and an SRB.

3.  The applicant was ordered to active duty and entered active duty on
        12 August 2004.  On 13 April 2005, he was honorably discharged by
reason of disability with severance pay.  His DD Form 214 for the period
ending 13 April 2005 shows he was given an SPD code of “JFL” (discharged by
reason of disability with severance pay).  His separation orders are not
available.

4.  On 6 November 2006, the applicant applied for a waiver of a debt the
result of an overpayment of a bonus.

5.  By letter dated 28 December 2006, DFAS informed the applicant he
successfully completed 26 months of his last enlistment contract and was
indebted for the remaining unearned portion of his SRB.  DFAS stated
recoupment of the SRB was based on his separation code.

6.  The Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (DODMFR),
Volume 7A, paragraph 090503M11 states recoupment [of enlistment,
reenlistment, or retention bonuses] is required for administrative
discharges, but “Recoupment is not required when member is medically
discharged with a physical disability.”

7.  The SPD/Pay Cross Reference Table used by DFAS to determine whether a
bonus should be recouped states “Recoup Bonus NO” and refers to Note 1.
Note 1 states “NO” means no recoupment, and pay remaining installments as a
lump sum.

8.  On 6 July 2007, DFAS informed the Board analyst it was possible the
applicant’s finance office had another SPD code during his outprocessing or
input the SPD code incorrectly, causing a collection when it should not
have.  DFAS was unable to find a record to review.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant reenlisted in the USAR on 13 February 2003 for 6 years
and an SRB.  On 13 April 2005, he was honorably discharged by reason of
disability with severance pay and an SPD code of “JFL.”

2.  In accordance with the DODFMR and the SPD/Pay Cross Reference Table
used by DFAS to determine whether a bonus should be recouped, the
applicant’s SRB should NOT have been recouped.

3.  There is no error on the applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period ending
       13 April 2005 concerning his SPD code of “JFL.”  However, it appears
an error that caused DFAS to recoup his SRB was made somewhere in his
records.  His records should be corrected to show he was properly separated
with an SPD of “JFL,” which does not require recoupment of his SRB.

BOARD VOTE:

__jns___  __wb____  __dkh___  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.  As a result, the Board recommends that all
Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by
showing he was properly separated with an SPD of “JFL,” which does not
require recoupment of his SRB, and that he be paid any SRB to which he is
entitled in accordance with the DODFMR and the SPD/Pay Cross Reference
Table as a result of being given an SPD of “JFL” for being discharged for
disability with severance pay.




                                  __John N. Slone_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070001852                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070718                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |128.05                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-04029

    Original file (BC-2007-04029.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The recoupment action of his $11,581.56, Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) be waived. AFI 36-3205, Applying for the Palace Chase and Palace Front Programs, clearly states the member must repay any unearned portion of an enlistment or reenlistment bonus. The master military pay account (MMPA) shows he separated with a SPD code of KGQ which indicates the bonus is to be recouped unless he separated under Force Shaping.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010241

    Original file (20100010241.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 6 July 2006, by memorandum, her immediate commander notified her of his intent to initiate separation action against her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-8, by reason of parenthood (failure to maintain an FCP). On 11 July 2006, her immediate commander initiated separation action against her under the provisions of chapter 5-8 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of failure to maintain an FCP. With respect to the separation code, the evidence of record shows the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015880

    Original file (20060015880.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The advisory opinion further indicates that regarding cases when Soldiers are separated for an unfulfilled contract or in doubtful cases, commanders have the option to request a waiver of recoupment provisions. Memoranda provided by the applicant's chain of command and career counselor both concur that the Department of the Army breached the terms of the applicant's reenlistment contract; therefore, the applicant is not obligated to repay the reenlistment bonus. Considering there is no...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012964

    Original file (20100012964.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Title 37, U.S. Code, section 303a(e)(1) states a member who receives a bonus shall repay an amount equal to the unearned portion of the bonus if the member fails to satisfy the eligibility requirements and may not receive any unpaid amounts of the bonus after the member fails to satisfy the requirements, unless the Secretary concerned determines that the imposition of the repayment requirement and termination of the payment of unpaid amounts of the bonus would be contrary to a personnel...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100335C070208

    Original file (2004100335C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states, in effect, that a change to the SPD code in question is necessary in order for the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to remit the debt he incurred based on his receipt of a Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB). The separation regulation further states that when it is determined that an enlistment is defective or cannot be fulfilled, a Regular Army soldier serving on a second or later enlistment, having been discharged from a previous enlistment before ETS to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008382

    Original file (20060008382.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant provides: a. On 6 May 2003, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations), chapter 5-13, by reason of a personality disorder. Based on the Army G-1 opinion and the in the interest of justice, it would now be appropriate to correct the record to show that applicant requested and was granted a waiver of recoupment of his unearned portion of his bonus incentive prior to his discharge from the Army.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004068

    Original file (20090004068.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 August 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090004068 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's request for separation based on pregnancy was not initiated until 17 October 2007, 5 full weeks after her son's birth. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. showing on her DD Form 214 her narrative reason for her separation as dependency; b. showing the authority for her...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018053

    Original file (20100018053.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The advisory official stated that based on available information, there is no record that any requests to either recoup or cancel her debt was made by her command. The advisory official recommended granting her request and cancelling the bonus-related debt based on her medical condition at the time of separation and honorable discharge. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. showing she was approved for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014895C071029

    Original file (20060014895C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02194

    Original file (BC-2005-02194.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the time of her separation she had been disqualified from Air Traffic Control duties and had been continued on active duty awaiting waivers and Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) processing. With regard to the presence of medical conditions that were potentially disqualifying for controller duties, the Medical Consultant states the fact that she decided to voluntarily separate under pregnancy provisions rather than remain on active duty and complete the planned evaluations and...