D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E N A V Y
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAW ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TRG
Docket No: 4069-98
25 June 1999
Dear -:
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United
States Code section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 22 June 1999. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
your application, together with all material submitted in support
thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
The Board found that you received nonjudicial punishment on 26
April 1995 of multiple specifications of making a false official
statement. The punishment imposed was a reduction in rate from
Awl (E-6) to AW2 (E-5) , and forfeiture of pay which were
suspended.
Regulations allow for the destruction of NJP evidence after a
period of two years. Therefore, the specifics of the charges are
unknown. However, in the performance evaluation for the period 1
December 1994 to 26 April 1995 you were assigned adverse marks of
2.0 in reliability and personal behavior. The following comments
were also offered:
. . . (He) conscientiously made the decision to falsify
his VHA recertification record after discovering his
divorce decree from 1988 had not be recorded in his
personnel record, resulting in over payment of $2,500.
This was also the event that precipitated his
appearance at Captain's Mast for violation of UCMJ
Article 107, False official statement (three
specifications), for which he was reduced to his
present rate ...
You were honorably discharged on 10 June 1995. At that time you
were not recommended for reenlistment and were assigned an RE-4
reenlistment code.
In your application you request, in effect, that the N J P be
removed from your record and/or the reduction in rate be set
aside. You claim that the commanding officer was in error about
the VHA. You have submitted a 1996 action in which this Board
corrected your record to allow payment of BAQ and VHA from 28
October 1988, the date of birth of your daughter, until 6 April
1995. Apparently, this action stopped the recoupment of about
$40,000 in excess payments resulting from an erroneous
determination that you were not entitled to these payments. You
claim that this Board's 1996 action means that there was no basis
for the 26 April 1995 N J P .
The pay computation in the record on which the previous Board's
action was based does not conclude that you were entitled to BAQ
or VHA from the date of your divorce, on 18 May 1988, until your
daughter was born on 28 October 1988. The record indicates that
the amount of overpayment was about $2,500, which is consistent
with the amount mentioned by the commanding officer in the
performance evaluation. As indicated, the Board's correction
pertained to payments after 28 October 1988 and did not address
amounts before that date. Given the absence of the N J P evidence,
the specific nature of the false official statements or when they
were made is unknown. However, the Board believed that the
comments in the performance evaluation show that an offense
occurred. Therefore, the Board concluded that the commanding
officer did not abuse his discretion in awarding N J P for the
$2,500 overpayment. The Board further concluded that the
punishment imposed was not too severe.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the .
Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material
evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board.
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a
presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval
record, the burden i s on the applicant t o demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or i n j u s t i c e .
Sincerely,
W . DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9609791C070209
This resulted in his receiving BAQ and VHA payments to which he was not entitled for a period of approximately 2 1/2 years. Finance Office personnel computed the amount of overpayment of BAQ and VHA at $11,659.42. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded: 1.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007086
Her DD Form 1966/1 (Record of Military Processing Armed Forces of the United States) shows that at the time of her enlistment she had two dependents, a son and husband. The Summary Record and Hearing Decision states: * Based on the facts surrounding the case, the appropriate collection actions and fee accruals were made in accordance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 * Collection of the debt by AWG will ensure the DOD is reimbursed for the overpayment of VHA that the...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 1998-089
He alleged that the children reside with him for, in the aggregate, “six months out of the year with no more than a twelve day break in said residence.” The applicant alleged that the xxxxxx District Personnel Office told him that he could not receive BAQ at the with-dependents rate (BAQ-W) under the regulations unless he had physical custody of his children for 90 consecutive days. The OMP states that “Section 3-E-4.d., of [the Pay Manual] established that when a member has temporary...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 1999-102
Finally, the Chief Counsel indicated that, if the applicant continued to pay child support from August 1996 through June 1997, he may have been eligible to receive BAQ plus BAQ Child for that period, as he did before August 1996. However, the Chief Counsel argued, the applicant “has not provided a court decree stating that child support payments are required in an amount equal to or exceeding the difference between BAQ-W and [basic BAQ], nor has he docu- mented that he made those payments...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01739
He receive a Presidential pardon removing his court-martial conviction and bad conduct discharge (BCD) from his record. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. As such, applicant's request for a Presidential pardon is not possible since such action is not within the purview of this Board's authority.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05813-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 20 July 2001 with enclosure, and a memorandum for the record dated 1 February 2002, copies of which are attached. on 7 That if Staff Serge 74. dependent status, his BAH at the “tithout” rate. &closures (26) and (27)] ‘%th dependent” rate should have been changed to the Id not properly certi@ his annual audit or 75. after falsely That Staff Serge c!rtifying...
It was her husband who initiated the actions required to obtain dependent benefits. After summarizing the processing of the Article 15, her military record, and her contentions and the evidence provided to support her appeal, JAJM indicated that although the applicant's explanation of her marital difficulties is compelling, the evidence submitted with her request does not fully 4 AFBCMR 97-00066 support her position. The records indicate that the applicant's military service was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005855
The applicant requests, in effect, remission or cancellation of his indebtedness to the United States Government in the amount of $16,000.00. The objectives of remission or cancellation are to remit or cancel debts to the U.S. Army that are considered to be unjust and to end hardship or undue suffering. Therefore, his request for remission or cancellation of this debt, or to extend the length of his payments, should not be granted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002774
A review of the applicants official records failed to reveal a copy of her divorce decree. Although she has not provided a copy of the original debt notification or her divorce decree, she has submitted a copy of her DA Form 5960 which shows that she submitted a request to change her BAH and VHA on 11 February 2005 based on her divorce of 26 August 2004, approximately 5 months after the fact, which in itself would have created a debt by that time. While it cannot be determined what the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03705
DFAS-IN states the applicant was discharged from the service due to a General Court-Martial Order, dated 18 July 2007. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The DFAS letter has errors and incorrect information. Based on the evidence of record and in an attempt to guide the applicant to the proper office for resolution, we determined the applicant is correct in that,...