APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his DD Form 214 be corrected to show the correct amount of separation pay he received to be $7,096.44 or less.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That the incorrect amount of separation pay was recouped by the VA.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records show he was born on     8 June 1957.  He completed 13 years of formal education.  On 9 November 1982, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 72E (Automatic Data Telecommunications Center Operator).  He was honorably discharged on 16 March 1988 for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on           17 March 1988 for 4 years.

On 20 August 1991, the applicant received a locally-approved bar to reenlistment, citing dishonored checks and two instances of failure to repair.

On 15 January 1992, the applicant received a Department of the Army Imposed Bar to Reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP).

Army Regulation 601-280, chapter 10, sets forth policy and prescribes procedures for denying reenlistment under the QMP.  This program is based on the premise that reenlistment is a privilege for those whose performance, conduct, attitude, and potential for advancement meet Army standards.  It is designed to (1) enhance the quality of the career enlisted force, (2) selectively retain the best qualified soldiers to 30 years of active duty, (3) deny reenlistment to nonprogressive and nonproductive soldiers, and (4) encourage soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service.  The QMP consists of two major subprograms, the qualitative retention subprogram and the qualitative screening subprogram.  Under the qualitative screening subprogram, records for grades E-5 through E-9 are regularly screened by the DA promotion selection boards.  The appropriate selection boards evaluate past performances and estimate the potential of each soldier to determine if continued service is warranted.  Soldiers whose continued service is not warranted receive a QMP bar to reenlistment.

On 16 March 1992, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-6, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, which directed the early release of soldiers with a QMP bar to reenlistment when budgetary or authorization limitations require a reduction in enlisted strength.  He was authorized separation pay.  His characterization of service was honorable.  He had completed 9 years,      4 months and 8 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

His DD Form 214 shows:  “Authorized estimated separation pay:  $8,453.00.”  Phone conversation with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service - Indianapolis on 14 April 1998 verified he received a total separation pay amount of $8,453.76 (less taxes).

Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1174, states:  “A member who has received separation pay under this section, or severance … shall not be deprived, by reason of his receipt of such separation…pay, of any disability compensation to which he is entitled under the laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, but there shall be deducted from that …disability compensation an amount equal to the total amount of separation…pay received, less the amount of Federal income tax withheld from such pay…”

The applicant is advised that, in dealings with the Veteran’s Affairs Department or other federal agencies, he may have to provide other documentation to show the amount of federal taxes deducted from his separation pay.

DISCUSSION:   Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 is not in error.  The amount of separation pay shown was only an estimated amount, and in dealings with other federal agencies was meant to be verified by other documentation.

2.  In view of the foregoing, there appears to be no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT 

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

			     		         Loren G. Harrell	
	 	                                         Director