PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            13 June 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999019412

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr.	Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr.	Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

	The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms.	Elizabeth Buchannon		Chairperson	
	Mr.	John H. Kern		Member	
	Ms.	Barbara J. Ellis		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his records be corrected to show an additional 125 days of active federal service time, the related retirement points and back pay.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that his retirement points were not accurately calculated.  While serving in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) he had periods of active duty, that were not factored into his final retirement computations, resulting in a loss of retirement points and pay.

4.  In support of his application, he submits a DARC Form 249-1-R, Request for Correction of Chronological Statement of Retirement Points for USAR Troop Program Members.  This form, dated 14 May 1984, from the commander of the applicant’s unit to the Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM), lists the periods of active duty from 1977 through 1983 and the corresponding active duty retirement points earned.  He also submitted copies of orders and leave and earning statements which reflect active duty for training periods and the pay received for those periods.

5.  The applicant’s military records show that he entered into the Regular Air Force on 7 November 1960 and served until separation on 11 August 1968.  He enlisted into the USAR on 19 July 1976, serving until separation on                   22 February 1983.  During the period 1977 – 1983, while in the USAR, he had approximately a dozen periods of active duty, normally relating to annual training. On 23 February 1980 he was commissioned and served in the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) program.  He was honorably discharged from the AGR at the rank of major on 31 October 1985 at age 43 with 20 years, 1 month, and 23 days of active federal service.

6.  Following his discharge, the applicant requested the AR-PERSCOM review his records and determine his eligibility for retired pay.  In 1999 the                 AR-PERSCOM developed a chronological record of his military service showing that he had accrued an additional 127 active duty retirement points.

7.  Review of his retirement credit records from the various sources shows that on several occasions the applicant was not given the full credit for the points earned.  The errors in crediting these points to his record appears to have been the result of transcription errors that occurred because the information was garnered from so many different sources over such a long period of time.

8.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the   AR-PERSCOM.  It concluded that the Board should not authorize back pay because the applicant failed to review his Retirement Point Accounting Statement (RPAS) on an annual basis and failed to provide documentation in a timely manner to correct his RPAS statement.  The applicant’s failure to provide pay vouchers and other supporting documentation in a timely manner resulted in the officer remaining on active duty for 4 months beyond his mandatory release date due to his basic active service date not being accurate.

9.  The advisory opinion was furnished to the applicant for review/comment, but he did not respond.

10.  Section 1331 through 1337 of Title 10, United States Code, authorizes retired pay for reserve component military service.  Under this law, a reserve soldier must complete a minimum of 20 qualifying years of service to be eligible for retired pay at age 60.  The term “good years” is an unofficial term meaning years in which 50 or more retirement points are earned during each year, and which count as qualifying years of service for retirement benefits at age 60.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Calculation of the applicant’s retirement points by the AR-PERSCOM shows that the applicant should have been credited with an additional 127 active duty points toward retirement.  Therefore, his DD Form 214 should be corrected to reflect this additional service.

2.  Accordingly, this information should be furnished to AR-PERSCOM to recalculate his years of service.

3.  Each year a RPAS statement is provided to each reservist for the purpose of ensuring their records reflect the correct number of retirement points.  The applicant, a field grade officer, was aware that his records were not correct but appears to have taken little or no action to correct the record prior to retirement.  The applicant also chose not to respond to the staff advisory opinion.  Despite his nonaction, the Board believes the applicant is entitled to the additional retirement pay this correction to his record will entail.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:

	a.  showing that the individual concerned was credited with an additional 127 active duty retirement points for the period 19 July 1977 to 18 July 1983; 
b.  furnishing his records to Commander, AR-PERSCOM to recalculate his years of service; and

c.  providing him any difference in retirement pay that may be due as a result of the correction described above.

BOARD VOTE:  

__eb____  ___jhk __  ____bje _  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__________Elizabeth Buchannon_____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999019412	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000613	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.