PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:            27 January 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035099

	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.  

	Mr. W. E. Schnupp		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. 		Member	

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

	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 that the erroneous separation code on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge, be corrected so that the separation pay he received will not be collected by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS).

3.  The applicant states that DFAS has advised him that he is responsible for repaying $3820.95 he received in separation pay because the separation code on his DD Form 214 did not permit such payment.  He contends, however, that his discharge orders and his DD Form 214 authorized half separation pay.  In support of his request, he has provided a copy of his Statement of Military Pay Account from DFAS showing his indebtedness in the amount of $3820.95, a copy of his discharge orders reflecting that he is entitled to one-half separation pay and a copy of his DD Form 214 also showing that he is entitled to half involuntary separation pay.

4.  The applicant’s military record shows that on 14 April 1997 he was processed for reenlistment.  He believed, at the time, he was entitled to a reenlistment bonus but following his reenlistment it was determined that he was not.  His commander subsequently advised him that he (the commander) was taking action to separate him for an erroneous enlistment.  Accordingly, he was honorably discharged for erroneous entry on 14 July 1997 in the grade of sergeant.  (It appears that separation for defective enlistment may have been more appropriate.)

5.  On 1 July 1997 discharge order 182-0239 was published showing that the applicant was not entitled to separation pay.  That order was revoked on 8 July 1997 and on the same date order 189-0240 was published showing that he was entitled to one-half separation pay.  On 14 July 1997, the date of his separation, his DD Form 214 was prepared and reflected that he was entitled to one-half involuntary separation pay.  The DD Form 214 also reflected the separation authority as Army Regulation 635-200, Section III and the separation code as “JFC”.

6. Army Regulation 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator  (SPD) Codes, provides that soldier’s discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Section III, for erroneous entry will be assigned separation code “JFC”.
Separation Code “JFC” is applied to indicate an involuntary discharge.

7.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the US Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM). It 

concludes that the applicant’s discharge order and DD Form 214 indicate he was eligible for separation pay but the DD Form 214 contained the wrong code for one-half separation pay.  However, he would have been entitled to such pay under DA Circular 635-92-1 for denial of his reenlistment.  The AR-PERSCOM further opines that since there is no evidence of fraud on the applicant’s part but rather a series of errors on the part of retention NCOs and the outprocessing station, the applicant should be granted one-half separation pay.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The separation code on the applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects a code that apparently precludes the payment of separation pay.  However, there seems to be some confusion whether or not the separation code on the DD Form 214 is consistent with the program under which he was separated.  Or, whether in fact, he was separated under the appropriate program.

2.  Nevertheless, the orders directing his separation authorized him one-half separation pay and his DD Form 214 was prepared indicating that he was entitled to one-half separation pay.  He accepted that pay believing he was entitled to it and there is no evidence in the available records to show that there was any effort to defraud the government.

3.  Notwithstanding the correctness of the separation code on the DD Form 214,  it would be appropriate, as an exception to policy, to allow him to retain the authorization for separation pay and excuse any indebtedness to the government.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

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

	a.  authorizing the individual concerned separation pay in the amount of $3820.95 as an exception to policy;

	b.  excusing his indebtedness to the government; and 

	c.  returning to him any monies already collected in payment of the debt.

BOARD VOTE:  

__inw___  __sk____  __eja____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_       ____  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_____Irene N. Wheelwright___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035099	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000127	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  128.14		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.