RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        21 August 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070002088


      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. Conrad V. Meyer               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Dale E. DeBruler              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine R. Moya             |     |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 records be corrected to show he is
eligible for retired pay at the over 24 rate (i.e., that he served for 24
years and 1 day of service for pay).

2.  The applicant states that he was entitled to longevity pay (for over 24
years of service); that was the purpose of his trying to get his record
changed to show he completed 24 years of service for longevity.  After he
received the Board’s decision, he was glad the Board had found that the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) had made an error.  It was
not clear to him when the Board determined not to give him 24 years of
service for retirement and pay purposes.  He waited to hear from DFAS.  Not
until he contacted his Congresswoman did DFAS respond to his inquiries.
Only then did he discover that he was one day short to be entitled to 24
years longevity pay.

3.  The applicant states that when he retired in 1980, his separation
document showed he had 24 years of total service for pay.  In 1998, DFAS’s
retiree pay summary account statement showed he only had 23 years, 11
months, and      29 days of service for pay.  Had he known he was short one
day, he could have reenlisted in the Army National Guard.  He was not aware
that service for basic pay is divided into groups based on the member’s
length of service for basic pay plus one day.  Had he been counseled about
needing an additional day in order to qualify for 24 years longevity pay,
he would have remained in for one more day.

4.  The applicant provides a self-authored letter, dated 12 March 2007; a
letter, dated 23 January 2006, from the Army Board for Correction of
Military Records (ABCMR); a letter, dated 16 January 2007, from DFAS; a
Summary of Retired Pay Account, dated 4 August 1998; a National Guard
Bureau (NGB) Form        22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service);
and correspondence to/from his Representative in Congress.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was born on 15 May 1938.  He enlisted in the Army
National Guard on 8 June 1956.  He was promoted to Sergeant First Class, E-
7 on 3 May 1966.  He was honorably discharged from the Army National Guard
and as a Reserve of the Army on 7 June 1980 after completing 24 years of
total service for pay.

2.  The applicant turned age 60 on 15 May 1998.  His Summary of Retired Pay
Account, dated 4 August 1998, showed he completed 23 years, 11 months, and
29 days of service for basic pay.

3.  The applicant applied to the ABCMR to correct his records to show he
completed 24 years of service for pay.  On 19 January 2006, the ABCMR
corrected his records as he requested.

4.  On 16 January 2007, DFAS informed the applicant that his records were
corrected to reflect that he completed 24 years of service for basic pay
purposes in accordance with the ABCMR’s directive.  He was also informed
that service  for basic pay is divided into groups based on the member’s
length of service     for basic pay purposes.  Currently, he was being paid
as a member with over     22 years of service for basic pay purposes.  To
become eligible for retired pay computed for a member with over 24 years of
service he must have at least       24 years, 0 months, and 1 days of
service for basic pay.

5.  On an annual basis, DFAS publishes a pay table (put out annually by the
Army Finance and Accounting Center prior the consolidation of Service pay
activities into a Department of Defense activity).  Basic pay rates by pay
grade are broken down into several groups:  “2 [years] or less; Over 2
[years]; Over      3 [years]; Over 4 [years]; Over 6 [years]; Over 8
[years]…Over 20 [years]; Over 22 [years]; Over 24 [years]; Over 26
[years].”  Every fiscal year, when the basic pay rates change, this pay
table is highly publicized in the “Army Times” and other Army publications.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant served in the Army National Guard for 24 years, from 8
June 1956 through 7 June 1980.  Annual basic pay rate tables had been
published and highly publicized for most if not all of the applicant’s
service.  This pay table is generally wide-spread knowledge in the Army
because of the importance of pay raises to all military personnel.

2.  It is not credible to believe the applicant had never seen that pay
table and known that pay raises are given for OVER certain periods of
service, generally at two-year intervals (i.e., OVER 4 years of service;
OVER 10 years of service; OVER 20 years of service; OVER 22 years of
service; OVER 24 years of service).

3.  The applicant did not complete 24 years and 1 days of service.  As a
senior noncommissioned officer, he should have used reasonable diligence
and not separated until after he completed OVER 24 years of service and
obtained that last pay raise.  There is insufficient evidence that would
warrant granting the relief requested.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__cvm___  __ded___  __erm___  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.




                                  __Conrad V. Meyer____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070002088                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070821                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |128.00                                  |
|2.                      |135.00                                  |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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