Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000031
Original file (20150000031.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  26 February 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150000031 


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, in effect, the removal of an erroneous DA Form 1506 (Statement of Service – For Computation of Length of Service for Pay Purposes) from her official military personnel file (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  Her initial DA Form 1506, dated 19 August 2013, was computed incorrectly by a former Human Resources (HR) Technician and rejected by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS).  Since DFAS did not accept it, it needs to be removed from her OMPF.  A new DA Form 1506, dated               26 September 2014, was computed by a new HR Technician; this version was accepted by DFAS.  

	b.  The U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) is only authorized to remove exact duplicates, illegible documents, and those documents misfiled by social security number.  She was referred to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for removal of the incorrect document.

3.  The applicant provides a DA Form 1506, dated 26 September 2014.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 16 June 2006, the applicant enlisted in the California Army National Guard (CAARNG).  
2.  On 21 August 2007, she entered active duty for the purpose of completing her initial entry training (IET).  On 28 February 2008, after completing IET, she was honorably released from active duty and returned to the control of the CAARNG.

3.  Orders 172-1041, issued by the CAARNG on 20 June 2012, discharged her from the ARNG and assigned her to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training), effective 15 June 2012.

4.  On 15 June 2012, she was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army in the rank of second lieutenant.

5.  Orders 089-041-A-8246, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Cadet Command on 29 March 2012, ordered her to active duty for a 9-year term, effective 8 July 2012.  

6.  On 8 January 2014, she was promoted to the rank of first lieutenant.

7.  Her OMPF contains 2 different DA Forms 1506 that were digitally signed by the applicant on 20 November 2013 and 26 September 2014.  

	a.  The DA Form 1506 she digitally signed on 20 November 2013, which was previously authenticated by an HR Technician on 19 August 2013, shows:

* her various periods of service and differentiates each period as Army service in either the active or Reserve components, using the entries "Army (Reserves)" and "Army (Active)"
* she completed 6 months and 8 days of active service prior to her appointment date
* establishes her Basic Active Service Date (BASD) as 13 December 2011
* her Pay Entry Basic Date (PEBD) as 16 June 2006  

	b.  This DA Form 1506 does not show she entered active duty on 8 July 2012. 

	c.  The DA Form 1506 she digitally signed on 26 September 2014, which was also authenticated by an HR Technician on 26 September 2014 documents her various periods of service and differentiates each period as Army service in either the ARNG, U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) or Regular components.  This form shows she was appointed as a Regular Army officer on 8 July 2012; however, her OMPF does not contain any documentation that supports this entry.

8.  Army Regulation 37-104-4 (Military Pay and Allowances Policy) provides policies pertaining to pay and allowances for active duty soldiers and is used in conjunction with Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (DODFMR), Volume 7, Part A (Volume 7A) and DOD 7000.14–R.  Appendix B provides instructions pertaining to the proper completion of the DA Form 1506.  The instructions for item 4 require the preparer to enter the applicable status and branch of the Soldier for whom the computation is being prepared.

	a.  For status, enter:

* IRR for Soldiers assigned to the Inactive Ready Reserve
* RES to show the performance of Reserve duty
* NG to show the performance of ARNG duty
* AGR to show the performance of Active Guard Reserve duty
* AD to show the performance of active duty
* INACTIVE to show no service obligation/performance

	b.  For branch, enter: 

* USA to show service in the U.S. Army
* USN to show service in the U.S. Navy
* USMC to show service in the U.S. Marine Corps
* USAF to show service in the U.S. Air Force
* USCG to show service in the U.S. Coast Guard

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records (AMHRR) Management) provides policies pertaining to the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and disposition of the AMHRR.  Table 3-1 (OMPF Folders in the AMHRR) provides that service computation documents are filed in the Service folder of the OMPF.  Once filed, such documents become a permanent part of the OMPF and may only be removed by one of several agencies, of which the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) is one such agency.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for the removal of an erroneous DA Form 1506 from her OMPF was carefully considered.

2.  Her OMPF contains 2 DA Forms 1506 that were completed in 2013 and 2014. She contends the form she completed in 2013 is incorrect and should be removed from her OMPF.  By her own admission, she had a second DA Form 1506 completed to replace the original, erroneously completed form.  

3.  A review of the DA Form 1506 she digitally signed on 20 November 2013 shows entries that are contrary to the preparation instructions contained in Army Regulation 37-104-4.   

4.  Additionally, the subject form does not accurately reflect her entry on active duty following her appointment, which should be 8 July 2012.  Consequently, her BASD appears to be inaccurate as well.  

5.  Based on the foregoing, it appears the DA Form 1506 she digitally signed on 20 November 2013 contains numerous errors.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to remove this form from her OMPF.

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 removing the DA Form 1506 that was digitally signed by the applicant on 
20 November 2013 from her OMPF.



      _____________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)                                         AR20100023855



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150000031



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130022397,

    Original file (20130022397,.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant adds that the Article 15 clearly stated that the portion of the punishment pertaining to the reduction in grade was suspended. After information is verified on the DA Form 5110, supporting finance documentation showing execution of the reduction or forfeitures, as well as the verification of OMPF filings by the OMPF custodian will be retained for 2 years after the date the punishment was imposed. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130022397

    Original file (20130022397.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant adds that the Article 15 clearly stated that the portion of the punishment pertaining to the reduction in grade was suspended. After information is verified on the DA Form 5110, supporting finance documentation showing execution of the reduction or forfeitures, as well as the verification of OMPF filings by the OMPF custodian will be retained for 2 years after the date the punishment was imposed. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150014471

    Original file (20150014471.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel requests: * removal of a referred officer evaluation report (OER) (hereafter identified as the contested OER) which covers the rating period 18 January 2011 through 31 July 2011 * alternatively, if the Board does not support removal, counsel requests its transfer to the restricted folder of the applicant's official military personnel file (OMPF) 2. Counsel continues: * SSG JEG's character was brought into question during the investigation, and there were statements which described...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014333

    Original file (20140014333.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Her record contains the contested memorandum 2, a memorandum for the Office of the DCoS, G-1, dated 21 August 2013, subject: Show Cause Recommendation - The Applicant, from LTG JWT, CDR, USARC. The U.S. Army Human Resources Command's (HRC) website contains a video script, dated 15 May 2015, subject: Selection Board Process Script, wherein MAJ CW, a board recorder for DA selection boards stated, in part: a. HQDA convenes approximately 80 selection boards each year. Also in accordance with...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000818

    Original file (20150000818.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests the officer evaluation report (OER) covering the rating period 5 March 2010 through 4 March 2011, herein referred to as the contested OER, be transferred to the restricted section of her official military personnel file (OMPF). Her 1 December 2014 written appeal of the contested OER to U.S. Army Human Resources Command was returned without action because she did not file it within 3 years of the through date of the OER. There is no evidence and the applicant has not...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004914

    Original file (20140004914.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests: a. remission or cancellation of his debt in the amount of $51,000.00 due to erroneously receiving Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) funds. The applicant states: a. he received improper guidance from the State Incentives Manager as to his eligibility for the SLRP. However, he was an officer when he received the SLRP funds in 2009.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000078

    Original file (20150000078.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states: * he was erroneously paid the SLRP incentive while deployed in 2005 * if not for the erroneous payment, he would have been eligible for SLRP when he later reenlisted in 2011 when the SLRP maximum was $50,000 * he was first made aware that he was not eligible for SLRP payment due to being a dual-status military technician through the California Army National Guard (CAARNG) Incentives Task Force audit process * he mobilized in January 2005 while serving as a dual-status...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013405

    Original file (20130013405.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In a memorandum/self-authored statement, dated 11 April 2012, to the ABCMR, she requested the following relief that was not previously addressed in ABCMR ROP 2, dated 11 July 2013: * the transcript [she purchased from an unaccredited school] and all associated documents relating to this [her appeal for the NCOER for the period 1 July 2008 through 30 June 2009 in ROP 2] and any previous appeals be removed from her AMHRR * the transcript [she purchased from an unaccredited school] be reviewed...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003029

    Original file (20140003029.txt) Auto-classification: Approved
  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001492

    Original file (20140001492.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She would be rated on her performance of as many of the duties as were applicable. Overall, the contested NCOER was not in accordance with Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) so she is requesting it be removed from her OMPF. Although she provides evidence that indicates possible irregularities in the published rating scheme for her senior rater, there is no evidence and she has not provided conclusive evidence that shows she was not properly informed as to her rating chain...