PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            10 DECEMBER 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002069670

	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. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Mr. Conrad V. Meyer		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 he receive pay and allowances for the period  
1 December through 9 December 1982.

3.  The applicant states that he has exhausted all attempts to collect the monies owed to him from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) for the period 1-9 December 1982.  

4.  The applicant’s military records show that his first period of enlistment began on 29 June 1973 and ended with an honorable discharge on 25 July 1978.  On   8 January 1980, he enlisted in the Regular Army where he served until he was discharged under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) on 11 January 1983. He was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  His discharge was based on a voluntary request for discharge, which he initiated on 10 December 1982.  At the time of his request he was serving in pay grade E-5.  On 
17 December 1982, prior to his discharge, he was reduced to pay grade of E-1, in accordance with provisions established under Army Regulation 635-200 which requires that individuals discharged under other than honorable conditions be reduced to pay grade E-1 prior to separation.

5.  On 18 February 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded the applicant’s 11 January 1983 UOTHC discharge to general and directed that his grade be restored to Sergeant/E-5.  

6.  As a result of the ADRB decision the Defense Finance and Accounting Service paid the applicant the difference between pay as an E-1 and that of an
E-5, from 10 December 1982 until 11 January 1983, the date of his discharge.

7.  However, the applicant’s December 1982 and January 1983 leave and earning statements (LES), contain annotations that show the applicant received no pay during the month of December; either as an E-5 from 1 December until 
17 December, when he was reduced, or as an E-1 from the 17th until the end of the month.  In effect, the applicant received no pay, at any grade during the month of December 1982.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It is unclear why the applicant received no pay for the month of December 1982, or why DFAS started paying him differential pay from E-1 to E-5 beginning on 10 December 1982, rather than beginning on 1 December, when the applicant was not reduced until 17 December.  

2.  The Board notes that the applicant is entitled to pay in the grade of E-5 for the entire month of December.  However, based on the actions by DFAS, as a result of the ADRB action, the Board now notes that the applicant was merely paid the "difference" in pay between E-1 and E-5, as though the applicant had been receiving pay as an E-1 commencing on 10 December 1982.  

3.  It appears, based on available evidence, that the applicant is entitled to pay and allowances in the grade of E-5 from 1 December through 9 December 1982. Additionally, the Board notes that it may be appropriate to rectify the error in payment which may have resulted by paying the applicant the difference in pay between E-1 and E-5 between 10 December 1982 and the end of that month, when in fact the applicant may not have originally received any pay during that time.

4.  However, notwithstanding the previous conclusions, the Board notes that the most appropriate action may be to have DFAS audit the applicant's finance records.  In the event that an audit of the applicant's finance records reveals that he was in fact paid during the month of December 1982 the Board authorizes officials at DFAS to pay the applicant any funds due him as though he had never been reduced to the grade of E-1, based on evidence available to them.  If he was in fact paid in the month of December 1982 then DFAS should pay the applicant any funds due him to compensate for the difference in pay he should have received and that which he did receive.

5.  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 authorizing officials at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to audit the applicant's finance records and pay the applicant any pay and allowance due him as though he had never been reduced to pay grade E-1. 

BOARD VOTE:  

__CLA __  __TSK __  __CVM__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Celia L. Adolphi______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002069670	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20021210	
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.	128.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.