MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       
                                AKA:       

	BOARD DATE:            13 June 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999023460

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. W. E. Schnupp		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

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

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	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)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That her separation date from active duty be corrected and wages that were recouped as a result of the error be refunded to her.

APPLICANT STATES:  In February 1991 her USAR unit was activated for Operation Desert Storm.  She separated from active service in September 1991. Her DD Form 214, reflects her separation date as 15 September 1991, which was incorrect.  The DD Form 214 was to be corrected but the DD Form 215, Correction of DD Form 214, contained the same incorrect separation date.  

She contends that during the time she was on active duty she accrued 2.5 days of leave per month.  She used 5 days in August 1991, which left 15 days of leave through her separation date of 30 September 1991.  She signed out of her unit on 15 September 1991 but was on leave until 30 September 1991.  Therefore, the separation date on her DD Form 214 should read 30 September 1991 instead of 15 September 1991.

In support of her application, she has provided a copy of her DD Form 214, a copy of DD Form 215, a copy of her August 1991 Leave and Earnings Statement (LES), a copy of her September 1995 LES and copies of letters between herself and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) and the Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) attempting to resolve her separation date question and her indebtedness resulting from it.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant, then an E-4 with the 2290th USA Hospital (USAR) was ordered to active duty on 1 February 1991 in support of Operation Desert Shield/Storm.  Her DD Form 214 shows she completed the period for which ordered to active duty and was released on 15 September 1991.  On 1 September 1992 a                  DD Form 215 was issued to correct items on the DD Form 214; however, the separation date was not one of those items identified for correction.

The applicant states that she was on terminal leave from 16 through                  30 September 1991.  There is no leave form or LES in the record to support this contention.

The August 1991 LES shows an indebtedness of $500.00 for advanced pay previously received.  The September 1995 LES reflects a $3830.32 debt including interest and fees, for pay and allowances accruing from 30 September 1992.  

Between September 1995 and January 1996 the applicant corresponded with the DFAS and the AR-PERSCOM concerning her separation date and the exact amount of her indebtedness.
In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the DFAS.  It states that the applicant separated from the service on 15 September 1991 but continued to receive pay for the period 16 September 1991 to             30 November 1991.  The funds were electronically transferred to a Federal Credit Union Account Number, which the applicant claims not to have received.  The opinion goes on to say that the applicant states she was on terminal leave from 16 – 30 September 1991.  Leave was not charged for the period                         16 – 30 September 1991 although the applicant continued to be paid through     30 November 1991, which established an indebtedness to the government.  The DFAS states that the applicant had a debt of $1296.02 at separation, which was collected in full from her Army Reserve Pay Account.

The applicant responded to the DFAS opinion and contests the determination of her separation date, which she says, should have been 30 September 1991 instead of 15 September 1991.  She also disputes the amount of her indebtedness and asks for an explanation of how the amount of the debt was determined.

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, it is concluded:

1.  While the applicant claims that her separation date from active duty should be changed from 15 to 30 September 1991 she has provided no evidence and the record contains no evidence in the form of orders or approved leave documents to support her request.  Furthermore, absent information to the contrary, the     DD Form 215 does not appear as though it was intended to correct the separation date on her DD Form 214.  Rather, it appears its only purpose was to correct the minor administrative data shown thereon.

2.  The issue of her indebtedness is confusing and will require more coordination between the applicant and the DFAS to resolve.  On the one hand, DFAS says that the applicant had a debt of $1296.02, which has been collected.  A September 1995 LES, however, reflects a debt of $3830.32.  DFAS claims that the applicant was paid through November 1991 even though she separated on 15 September 1991.  The applicant claims no knowledge of an overpayment for this time period.  It would appear to be in the applicant’s best interest to further pursue the DFAS for a complete accounting of her indebtedness then, if appropriate, she may again petition this Board for consideration of her case.

3.  Unless and until the applicant provides evidence to support her alleged separation date of 30 September 1991, and a precise accounting of her indebtedness to the government there is no relief this Board can offer her.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is 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

__eb____  __jhk ____  ___bje __  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023460	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000613	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  100.02		
2.   110.01		
3.   128.10		
4.   		
5.		
6.