PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:

	BOARD DATE:           16 October 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001059880

	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	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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, in effect, that he be provided back pay and allowances from 1984 to 1995 based on his adjusted correct Pay Entry Basic Date (PEBD). 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that for 6 years he has attempted to correct a pay problem that was discovered by his unit clerk during his retirement processing in 1995.  In researching his records, the clerk found a discrepancy in his pay records as a result of an incorrect PEBD being listed which had resulted in his shorted pay for 10 years.  An inquiry was submitted to Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), Indianapolis, Indiana, and after a few months DFAS provided him the forms necessary to submit a claim.  He submitted the forms to his unit clerk along with all his leave and earnings statements (LESs) who in turn submitted the claims to DFAS for processing.  Subsequent to his retirement, he has continuously tried to collect on his claims and in January 1997, he called DFAS only to find out that the department handling his claim was closing down and the individual that had handled his case no longer worked there.  He was also told that his claim packet had probably been thrown out or lost and that he would have to resubmit it.  Over a six year period, he continued to call numerous 800 phone numbers trying to resolve his claim but to no avail.  Finally, he made contact with someone who indicated they could help but instead of DFAS claim forms he was provided an application (DD Form 149) to submit to this Board. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 14 May 1995 he was honorably discharged from the Army National Guard (ARNG) of California and transferred to the United States Army Reserve (USAR) Retired Reserve.  The separation document (NGB Form 22) issued to him on the date of his separation confirms that at that time he held the rank and pay grade of sergeant/E-5 and had completed 22 years, 5 months, and 15 days of total service for pay. 

5.  On 14 February 1995, personnel officials of the Office of The Adjutant General (OTAG), California ARNG, published an amendment to the applicant’s  enlistment records.  This document listed all periods of inactive and active service completed by the applicant and it indicated that as of 14 October 1990 he had accrued a total of 17 years, 10 months, and 15 days of creditable military service.  It also confirmed that applicant’s PEBD had been recomputed from authorized verifiable documentation as required by ARNG regulations which resulted in it being adjusted to 30 November 1972 and that this amended date was coded in the Standard Installation Division Personnel System (SIDPERS).

6.  The NGB Form 22, prepared on and issued to the applicant upon his discharge from the ARNG and transfer to the USAR Retired Reserve on 14 May 1995 documented, in block 10 (Record of Service), the following periods of service completed by the applicant:  Net Service This Period - 4 years and 
7 months; Prior Reserve Component Service – 14 years, 10 months, and 
15 days; Prior Active Service – 3 years; and Total Service for Pay – 22 years, 
5 months, and 15 days.  In addition, the Personnel Qualification Record prepared on the applicant just a month prior to his separation, dated 14 April 1995, lists his PEBD as 30 November 1972.

7.  The applicant provided LESs for the period 1 January 1984 through 31 May 1990, all of which show his PEBD as 1 May 1976.  In addition, he supplied copies of the applications for arrears in pay (DD Forms 827), dated 8 December 1995, which he had submitted to DFAS in an attempt to collect the difference in his pay that resulted from his PEBD being adjusted from 1 May 1976 to 
30 November 1972.  

8.  Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (DODFMR), Volume 7A, provides military pay policies and procedures for active duty and reserve pay.  Paragraph 010401 provides guidance on computing a basic pay date.  It states, in pertinent part, that all basic pay date computations for enlisted members start with the most recent enlistment date without a break in service.  After the basic pay date is determined, all creditable service for prior periods of service are computed and credited and, in effect, after the applicable computation formulas are completed the PEBD is established accordingly. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he should receive any back pay due based on the difference between the 1 May 1976 PEBD that was listed in his pay records from 1984 to 1990 and the correct adjusted PEBD of 
30 November 1972 that was established during his retirement processing in 
1995 and it finds this claim has merit. 

2.  The pay records submitted by the applicant seem to confirm that his PEBD was incorrectly recorded as 1 May 1976 in all the LESs he received between 
1 January 1984 to 20 May 1990.  Further, the evidence of record clearly shows that on 14 February 1995 OTAG personnel officials from the California ARNG determined, using authorized and verifiable documentation, that the applicant’s PEBD was 30 November 1972.  In addition, they took the necessary action to update his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and to code this adjusted PEBD in the SIDPERS database.  

3.  The Board is unable to determine from the available evidence what the specific reason is for the DFAS not acting on the applicant’s applications for arrears in pay.  However, it does conclude that it would be appropriate and serve the interest of justice to provide the applicant all back pay and allowances due as a result of his PEBD being adjusted to 30 November 1972 by the proper ARNG personnel officials. 

4.  Although the Board has no authority to correct State ARNG records, governed under Title 32, the Board is of the opinion that so far as the Department of the Army is concerned, it would be in the best interest of justice to correct the ARNG records of the individual concerned as recommended below. 

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by providing the individual concerned all back pay and allowances due for the period 1 January 1984 through 14 May 1995, the date he was discharged from the ARNG, based on his correct PEBD of 30 November 1972 vice the incorrect 
1 May 1976 PEBD that was recorded in his pay records for this period. 

BOARD VOTE:  

__RVO__  ___RKS__  __DPH__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.__
		            CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059880	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/10/16	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	N/A 	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	N/A 	
DISCHARGE REASON	N/A	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  283	128.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.