PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:             5 April 2001                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000046251

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Gale J. Thomas		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 his DD From 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show he was discharged in the grade of E-6, and that his separation pay be updated to the pay grade of E-6. 

3.  The applicant states that he was reduced to pay grade E-5, for administrative reasons, and that he should have been separated as an E-6.  

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Army National Guard on 28 August 1986, in the pay grade of E-4.  

5.  The applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 and E-6 on 1 December 1987, and 12 August 1989, respectively.  

6.  On 14 May 1990, the applicant was administratively reduced to pay grade E-5 to accept an Active Guard Position (AGR) in Bayshore, New York.

7.  On 11 March 1991, while relocating steel shelves in the unit supply room, a shelf fell from its mounting injuring the applicant’s right hand.  This injury was determined to be in the line of duty.

8.  On 23 October 1994, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) determined that the applicant suffered with problems of his right wrist, and recommended that he be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  

9.  On 9 December 1994, an informal PEB recommended a 10 percent disability rating under VA Codes 5215 and 5003 for degenerative arthritis of the right wrist. The PEB found that the applicant was physically unfit and recommended that he be separated with severance pay.

10.  On 22 December 1994, the applicant nonconcurred with the PEB recommendation and requested a formal hearing.  

11.  In February 1995, a formal PEB recommended the applicant receive a       10 percent disability rating under VA Codes 5010 and 5215 for degenerative arthritis of the right wrist.  The PEB determined that the applicant was unfit to perform the duties of his rank and MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) and recommended that he be separated from the service with severance pay.  

12.  On 3 July 1995, the Physical Disability Agency directed that the applicant be discharged effective 2 August 1995, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-24b(3), with a disability rating of 10 percent and severance pay in the grade of Staff Sergeant (E-6).  

13.  On 2 August 1995, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-24b(3), physically disability with severance pay.  His DD Form 214 indicates he was separated in pay grade E-5, with a total of 12 years, 4 months and 18 days of active service and that he received $34,813.80 in severance pay.

14.  Communication with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Indianapolis Center, revealed that the applicant was paid severance pay in the grade of E-5.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative reduction to pay grade E-5 was as a result of him accepting an Active Guard Reserve position, and was not due to misconduct. 

2.  The Army Disability Agency authorized the applicant to receive severance pay under Title 10, United States Code, Section 1372, which allows members of the armed forces to receive pay at the highest grade satisfactorily held, therefore the applicant should have received severance pay as an E-6.    

3.  The applicant was authorized to receive severance pay in the grade of E-6, and as an exception to policy and in the interest of justice, his records should be changed to show he separated in the pay grade of E-6.  This change in his separation grade from E-5 to E-6 would alleviate the confusion caused by the difference in his separation grade and the grade on which his separation pay was based.  Such a change does not authorize the applicant entitlement to any additional benefits.  Additionally, in the interest of clarity a statement should be made in item 18 (Remarks) of the applicant's DD Form 214 stating that his previous grade of E-6 was administratively restored at the time of his 2 August 1995 separation.

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:

a.  by showing the applicant was separated in the grade of E-6, and entitled to severance pay in the grade of E-6, and

b.  by placing the statement "Grade of E-6 administratively restored effective 2 August 1995", in item 18 (Remarks) of his 1995 DD Form 214. 

BOARD VOTE:  

__jh_____  ___cla__  ___hbo__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046251	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010405	
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.  110.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.