IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 23 August 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120000582
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 correction of his military records to show entitlement to special duty assignment pay (SDAP).
2. The applicant states his SDAP was erroneously stopped by his station commander in February 2010. He did not know at the time that this was wrong and thought the SDAP was terminated because he was not on mission due to his prostate cancer. In April 2011, he was advised that he was entitled to SDAP at all times because he had always worked at the recruiting station in support of the recruiting mission. The S-1 (personnel officer) agreed and submitted a DA Form 2446 (Request for Orders); however, neither St. Louis nor Fort Meade would process the request.
3. The applicant provides:
* DA Form 2446, dated 20 April 2011
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* three letters from the Office of the Inspector General, Fort McNair, dated 3, 9, and 16 August 2011
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. A DA Form 2446 from the New York City Recruiting Battalion, dated 20 April 2011, requests SDAP for the applicant for the period 27 February 2010 to 30 April 2011. The request is signed by the Adjutant and indicates it was sent to the Commander, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Meade, for action.
2. On 31 July 2011, the applicant retired from U.S. Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve (AGR) duty in the rank of sergeant first class/pay grade E-7. His DD Form 214 shows he completed more than 14 years of net active service during this period.
3. An advisory opinion was received from the Chief, Compensation and Entitlements Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, Department of the Army, dated 23 May 2012, in the processing of this case. The opinion stated:
a. The documents provided concerning the applicant's request for SDAP from 27 February 2010 until July 2011 were carefully reviewed.
b. The applicant appears to be eligible to receive SDAP of $450.00 per month from 27 February 2010 until 29 April 2011.
c. His eligibility for SDAP ended when he left his position on 29 April 2011.
d. His request for SDAP is supported for the period stated above.
4. On 2 May 2012, a copy of the advisory opinion was sent to the applicant for his information and opportunity to respond. No response was received.
5. Army Regulation 601-1 (Assignment of Enlisted Personnel to the U.S. Army Recruiting Command) establishes policies and procedures for the selection, training, management, assignment, and reassignment of AGR Soldiers assigned or attached to the U.S. Army Recruiting Command.
6. Army Regulation 614-200 (Enlisted Assignments and Utilization Management) provides guidance for the selection of enlisted Soldiers for assignment and utilization. Section IV states SDAP is a monetary incentive paid to enlisted Soldiers who qualify for and serve in designated special duty (SD) assignments that have extremely demanding duties requiring extraordinary effort for satisfactory performance or an unusual degree of responsibility. SDAP is computed based upon a 30-day month. Entitlement accrues from the date of authorization through the day before the effective date of the termination order. SDAP will be prorated for that portion of the month in which the entitlement starts or ends. The monthly rate of pay equates to SD levels, with $450.00 authorized for SD-6. Production recruiters assigned recruiting objectives or production quotas who are actively involved in contracting applicants are authorized SD-6.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant requests correction of his military records to show entitlement to SDAP because it was erroneously stopped by his station commander in February 2010.
2. The available evidence clearly shows the applicant was in an active status as a recruiter during the period 27 February 2010 through 29 April 2011 entitling him to SDAP.
3. In view of the above, the applicant's request should be granted.
BOARD VOTE:
___X ___ ___X____ ___X ___ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Board determined the evidence presented is 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:
a. showing he was issued orders awarding him SDAP for the period 27 February 2010 through 29 April 2011 and
b. auditing his military pay records and paying him all monies due as a result of this correction.
__________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) AR20120000582
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120000582
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9313400
The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show that he was entitled to Special Duty Assignment Pay (SDAP) for recruiting duties he performed from 24 March 1987 to 26 April 1988. During the period in question, 24 March 1987 through 26 April 1988, he served as a recruiter training NCO and recruiter assistant operations NCO. The USAREC stated that if the applicant was performing duties as a recruiter or as an assistant operations NCO, he would be eligible for SDAP as a staff...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014356
He further stated that because his PCS was to a duty related school and he was still a part of the Defense Attaché Service (DAS), his SDAP was never questioned. The applicants claim that his record should be corrected to show the debt he incurred as a result of overpayment of SDAP was cancelled because he was assigned to a duty related training course of instruction for a follow on special duty assignment has been carefully considered. The evidence of record confirms the JMAS training...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012177
It shows that orders must be issued to award, change, terminate, and reinstate SDAP and that the Commander, HRC, is the order issuing authority; and b. paragraph 3-23 (Eligibility criteria for SDAP) that enlisted Soldiers are eligible to receive SDAP when they are qualified in one of the authorized SD assignments and shows that CMF 18, Army Special Operations Forces Soldiers are authorized SDAP-5. The evidence of record shows the applicant was issued orders for SDAP-5 and he was paid SDAP-5...
On 3 January 1992, the Director of Personnel notified applicant that because of her inability to meet her recruiting goals, he was recommending her recruiting tour be terminated for substandard duty performance under the provisions of ANGR 35-03, para 6-5c(4). On 20 March 1992, The Adjutant General notified applicant that after a thorough review of the investigating officer's report and applicant's recommendation for involuntary separation from Full-Time National Guard Duty for substandard...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8497 14
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, Suite 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204 JET Docket No. NR8497-14 6 Apr 15 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.c. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7234 14
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, Suite 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204 JET Docket No. NR7234-14 16 Mar 15 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO Ref; (a) Title 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050016611C070206
Counsel requests that the following relief be granted to the applicant: a. removal of the document from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) that separated him from active duty without evaluation of his disability; b. removal of all documents and references to the applicant's separation from his OMPF; c. be returned to active duty, retroactive to 31 May 2003 for evaluation of his medical condition by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB); d. correction of his records to show that he served...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005781
Counsel states that in December 2000, the applicant was assigned for duty as an AGR recruiter. Counsel states that in February 2006, the applicant was reinstated to recruiter duties. Counsel states that in October 2006, the applicant's supervisor recommended that the applicant be released from active duty due to his not meeting mission quotas.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04275
DPAA3 states that according to her performance reports and the letter from her commander, the applicant was assigned to Keesler Air Force Base (AFB), from November 2005 until she separated from active duty in March 2010. She was medically disqualified in March of 2010 and separated from active duty in August of 2010. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 March 2012, w/atchs.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 10237 12
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS eye Ge RRO URL RE BOAT SLITS 4904 704 Ere Te ROAD, a ae om ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 JBH Docket No. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to credit member Special Duty Assignment Pay (SDAP) 1 April to 31 July 2011. George, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and...