IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  23 September 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080008105 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests payment of her Selected Reenlistment Bonus (SRB). She submitted her application through her Representative in Congress.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the Army now claims that because her military occupational specialty (MOS) was not on an "authorized specialty for entitlement to the bonus" that it will not pay her the SRB for which she reenlisted. She contends that the Army should honor its contract with her and pay her the $20,000.00 bonus. 

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her reenlistment contract and addendum.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The available records indicate that after completing 15 years, 3 months, and 8 days of total prior inactive service and 2 years, 9 months, and 20 days of total prior active service, the applicant returned to active duty on 21 February 1999 in an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) status.

2.  The available records also indicate that the applicant was still on active duty when she reenlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) for an indefinite period on 25 January 2005.  The remarks section on her DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document – Armed Forces of the United States) indicates that her indefinite reenlistment was an AGR/subsequent tour in accordance with Army Regulation 140-111, chapter 8 and Special Reenlistment 
Bonus Designator Zone 3, in military occupational specialty 42L30, for 6 years.  Her DD Form 4 also indicates that her bonus would be paid in accordance Military Personnel (MILPER) Message 04-353 and future MILPER messages directing change.  She indicated that she understood that her reenlistment was for an indefinite period of time and that she would be allowed to continue in an AGR status until she reached her Retention Control Point (RCP) for her current grade or maximum age, whichever came first.

3.  A review of the applicant's DA Form 4789 (Statement of Entitlement to Selective Reenlistment Bonus) shows she reenlisted in MOS 42L for an indefinite period.  She indicated that she had been advised and understood that if she did not complete the full period of service, or if she did not remain technically qualified in MOS 42L, she would not get any more installments of the bonus, and would have to pay back as much of the bonus she had already received for the unexpired part of the period of obligated service.

4.  The DD Form 214 that the applicant was furnished at the time of her separation indicates that she was honorably released from active duty on 12 January 2007, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 4, due to completion of her required active service.  In the remarks section of her DD Form 214, it is noted that the applicant forfeited severance pay for nondisability retired pay at age 60.  She was assigned to the Retired Reserve effective 14 January 2007.

5.  On 17 September 2007, in a response to her Senator who inquired regarding payment of the applicant's SRB, the Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison, Washington, D.C., advised that the officials at the Human Resources Command (HRC), St. Louis, indicated that the applicant was erroneously given a Selective Service Reenlistment Bonus Control Number; therefore, payment authorization was never sent to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS).  At the time of her reenlistment, her primary MOS of Administrative Specialist was not an authorized specialty for entitlement to the bonus.  

6.  In processing this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Senior Army Reserve Career Counselor at the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, Washington, D.C., who indicated that the SRB was authorized on 16 November 2004 under 37 U.S. Code, section 308, for AGR Soldiers.  MILPER Message
04-353 announced the initial implementation guidance for the SRB and the list of designated critical MOS’s for the purpose of SRB eligibility.  The applicant's primary MOS of 42L was not designated as eligible on the SRB MOS list.  She received a Bonus Control Number from HRC-St. Louis at the time of her reenlistment; however, that bonus control number was issued in error.  He advised that the applicant's reenlistment was erroneous and should have been dealt with in accordance with appropriate regulations.  She entered into an agreement that could not be honored because she did not meet the basic eligibility for it.  Army Regulation 135-178, chapter 7, outlines the procedural steps to be followed when it was discovered that her reenlistment was erroneous. Regrettably, the applicant reenlisted during the initial implementation of the SRB program when HRC-St. Louis officials were still learning the particulars of a new program resulting in the erroneous issuance of the bonus control number.  G-1 recommended denial of the applicant's request for payment of the bonus.

7.  On 12 August 2008, the applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion for comment and/or rebuttal.

8.  On 16 August 2008, the applicant responded to the advisory opinion.  She indicated she was in complete disagreement and in utter disbelief with the unfavorable recommendations from G-1.  G-1 clearly admits that her reenlistment was erroneous, yet recommends denying payment of the SRB.  She provides her reasoning for her disagreement.

9.  Title 37, U.S. Code, section 308, authorizes the Secretary concerned to pay a bonus to a member of a uniformed service who has completed at least 
17 months of continuous active duty (other than for training) but not more than
20 years of active duty; is qualified in a military skill designated as critical by the Secretary of Defense, or by the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as service in the Navy; and reenlists or voluntarily extends the member's enlistment for a period of at least 3 years in a Reserve component of the service concerned, if the member is performing active Guard and Reserve duty.   The bonus to be paid may not exceed the lesser of the following amounts: 

	(a) The amount equal to the product of:

	      (1)  15 times the monthly rate of basic pay to which the member was entitled at the time of the discharge or release of the member; and 

	      (2)  the number of years (or the monthly fractions thereof) of the term of reenlistment or extension of enlistment, not to exceed 6.
	    
	(b)  $90,000.

10.  Any portion of a term of reenlistment or extension of enlistment of a member that, when added to the total years of service of the member at the time of discharge or release, exceeds 24 years may not be used in computing a bonus.  Bonus payments authorized under this section may be paid in either a lump sum or in installments.  

11.  A member who voluntarily, or because of his/her misconduct, does not complete the term of enlistment for which a bonus was paid to him/her or a member who is not technically qualified in the skill for which a bonus was paid to him/her, shall be subject to the repayment provisions of Section 303a(e) of
Title 37 (other than a member who is not qualified because of injury, illness, or other impairment not the result of his own misconduct) and shall refund that percentage of the bonus that the unexpired part of his additional obligated service is of the total reenlistment or extension period for which the bonus was paid.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant reenlisted on 25 January 2005 for an indefinite period with the expectation of receiving a SRB.  Her reenlistment contract assigned her a Bonus Control Number from HRC-St. Louis.  DFAS discovered that her MOS was not designated as eligible on the SRB MOS list and did not pay her the bonus.  However, she continued to serve on her reenlistment contract after discovering that she was not eligible for the bonus and did not request that her reenlistment contract be voided.  In February 2006, she was notified that she was eligible for retired pay at age 60.  

2.  The applicant was subsequently found to be medically unfit for continued AGR service and she was honorably released from active duty on 12 January 2007, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 4, due to completion of her required active service.  In the remarks section of her DD Form 214, it is noted that the applicant forfeited severance pay for nondisability retired pay at age 60.

3.  In September 2007, she was advised that the officials at the HRC- St. Louis erroneously gave her a Selective Service Reenlistment Bonus Control Number when her primary MOS was not an authorized specialty for entitlement to the bonus.  Therefore, payment authorization was never sent to the DFAS and that was why she was never paid her bonus.  G-1 advised that her reenlistment contract was erroneous and it should have been dealt with in accordance with Army Regulation 135-178.  However, there is no evidence that the applicant's reenlistment contract was voided and, as noted above, she continued to serve in AGR until she was notified of medical disqualification.  


3.  Given the above, there is no basis upon which to grant the applicant's request.  Although, HRC- St. Louis erroneously gave her a Selective Service Reenlistment Bonus Control Number when her primary MOS was not an authorized specialty for entitlement to the bonus, she had the opportunity to exercise the option to have her reenlistment contract voided.  However, even after receiving notification that DFAS had not authorized payment of her bonus, she voluntarily continued to serve on active duty.  

4.  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 did not submit any evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__X_____  ___X____  ___X___  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.




_   _______ 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)                                         AR20080008105



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080008105



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1