BOARD DATE:	16 January 2014  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130007478 


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 he re-negotiated his Dental Officer Multi-Year Retention Bonus (DOMRB) contract.

2.  The applicant states that initially, on 13 December 2012, he requested to re-negotiate the DOMRB through the Special Pay Branch, Office of the Surgeon General (OTSG).  This is typically all he needed to do and in a month or so the request would have been processed.  However, the Special Pay Branch did not respond by indicating "Yes or No" and no other information was requested.  The applicant contends that he made several attempts to get the contract moving because he had just over 4 years remaining before he expected to retire.  He needed to get the contract signed no later than 19 April 2013.  Starting this process in December gave plenty of time to complete the contract.  However, on 13 March 2013 the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) published a memorandum stating that no further multi-year contracts could be processed.  The applicant contends that if his December 2012 request had been handled promptly it could have been processed prior to implementation of the policy stopping all re-negotiations of multi-year contracts.

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* A Request for Dental Additional Special Pay (DASP), dated 17 April 2012
* An AMEDD Special Pay, Renegotiated Contract Authority Rescinded, document dated 13 March 2013
* Email, dated between 13 December 2012 and 22 March 2013

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  At the time of his application, the applicant was serving in the Regular Army as a colonel, pay grade O-6.

2.  On 17 April 2012, the applicant signed a DASP contract for a 1-year period from 8 July 2012 to 7 July 2013.  This contract indicates it was approved by his commander.

3.  Email written between the applicant, his unit, and AMEDD Special Pay Branch states the following:

	a.  On or prior to 13 December 2012, the applicant informed the Secretary, Dental Activity (DENTAC), Fort Meade, MD, that he had been on active duty over 25 years.  He was not sure of the exact length of active duty service because he had a break in his service.  He indicated he wanted to stay as long as possible and wanted to collect a dental bonus until he retired.  He wanted to know when he should sign a new DOMRB so the bonus would expire at 30 years.

	b.  On 13 December 2012, the Secretary, DENTAC, Fort Meade, MD forwarded the applicant's concern to the Special Pay Branch, OTSG.

	c.  On 10 January 2013, the Special Pay Branch responded by stating they could not make any determination without the applicant's firm retirement date.

	d.  On 11 February 2013, the Secretary, DENTAC, Fort Meade, MD indicated the applicant's firm retirement date was 20 April 2017.

	e.  On 14 February 2013, the Special Pay Branch responded by saying that records in personnel and finance showed the applicant had been on active duty since 7 July 1994 giving him 19 years of active service and a mandatory retirement date (MRD) of 3 July 2023.  It also suggested that if the applicant was sure his active duty and Reserve time equaled 30 years as of 20 April 2017 then he could sign a 4-year re-negotiated contract effective 20 April 2013.

	4.  On 13 March 2013, the Special Pay Branch, OTSG, published a 1-page document announcing the Assistant Secretary of the Army (ASA), Manpower and Reserve Affairs (M&RA) rescinded the Army policy regarding the re-negotiating of all AMEDD officer special pay contractual agreements, effective 4 March 2013.  

   a.  All re-negotiated contractual agreements pending payment were to be returned without action.  
   b.  Officers could retain their contractual agreements for the duration of the contracted period, but they would not be authorized to re-negotiate an agreement for any purpose except to align annual medical additional special pay (MASP) and DASP with an MRD for age 62 or 30 years of active Federal service.  

   c.  Re-negotiations to align with a 20+ year retirement were no longer authorized.

5.  In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, AMEDD, Special Pay Branch, OTSG.

	a.  The opinion acknowledged the applicant's contention that he could not execute his DOMRB contract because his command and OTSG could not provide a timely response to his question regarding what effective date should be used.  The applicant contends that he did not get a response to his question until after the ASA, M&RA, had rescinded the re-negotiation policy.

	b.  Per the documents provided by the applicant, the email query began on 
13 December 2012 and ended on 22 March 2013 with the final unofficial answer being that his MRD was 20 April 2017.  Therefore, a re-negotiated DOMRB contract could be effective on 20 April 2013, 4 years prior to his MRD.

	c.  The criteria for a re-negotiated DOMRB contract to align with an MRD require proof of final retirement date.  The supporting documents are then attached to the executed corresponding obligatory DOMRB contract.  There is no record showing the applicant executed a re-negotiated DOMRB contract.

	d.  Effective 4 March 2013, the ASA, M&RA announced that Army policy regarding the re-negotiation of all AMEDD officer special pay contractual agreements was rescinded.  All such contracts pending payment were to be immediately returned without action.

	e.  The applicant may not have gotten timely information regarding the effective date of his re-negotiated DOMRB contract because there was no system-requested calculation of his MRD.  Therefore, the request for the re-negotiated DOMRB contract could not be authorized.  Based on the applicant's subsequent effective date of 20 April 2013, which was after rescission of the re-negotiation policy, the DOMRB contract would have been returned without action.



6.  On 29 May 2013, a copy of the advisory opinion discussed in the preceding paragraph was sent to the applicant for his information and opportunity to respond.  On 24 June 2013, he responded with a 3-page narrative and nine enclosures.

	a.  The applicant argues that he could not submit a request to re-negotiate his DOMRB contract until his MRD was correctly established.  Furthermore, without the MRD, a firm date for retirement was impossible to determine.

	b.  The applicant further argued that he entered the Army in 1994 and that had his personnel data been correct his request, dated December 2012, would have been timely for processing prior to the policy change.

	c.  The applicant urges that his request be honored and a new DOMRB 
4-year contract be generated, signed and executed.

7.  On 18 November 2013, the applicant sent the Board an email containing communications that occurred between 29 May and 18 November 2013 concerning the determination of his correct MRD.  It states:

	a.  On 29 May 2013, the applicant's Dental Corps Branch at the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) informed the applicant that work was on-going to correct his personnel records to show his correct MRD.

	b.  On 18 November 2013, HRC informed the applicant that his personnel records had been corrected to show his correct MRD as 1 May 2018.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his military records should be corrected to show he re-negotiated his DOMRB contract.

2.  The available evidence strongly indicates the applicant made an inquiry about his MRD in December 2012 and his desire to request a 4-year DOMRB contract.  Unfortunately, the data in the various automated systems did not agree with what the applicant believed to be correct.  It took an extraordinarily long time to correct the problem.

3.  Effective 4 March 2013, the ASA, M&RA rescinded the Army policy regarding the re-negotiation of all AMEDD officer special pay contractual agreements.  All such contracts pending payment were to be immediately returned without action.

4.  The applicant may not have gotten timely information regarding the effective date of his re-negotiated DOMRB contract because there was no system requested calculation of his MRD.  Therefore, the request for the re-negotiated DOMRB contract could not be authorized.  The applicant's subsequent MRD allowed for an effective date of 20 April 2013, which was after rescission of the re-negotiation policy.  Accordingly, the DOMRB contract would have been returned without action.

5.  Furthermore, in November 2013, the applicant's MRD was again changed to 
1 May 2018.  This means that his 4-year DOMRB could not be effective until 
1 May 2014.

6.  In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20130007478



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130007478



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1