SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           23 July 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002071788

	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.  A quorum was present during the further consideration and deliberation.  The findings appearing in proceedings dated 23 May 2001 were affirmed.  The following additional findings, conclusions, and recommendation were adopted by the Board.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. G. E. Vandenberg  		Analyst	

	The Board convened at the call of the Director on the above date to reconsider the conclusions and recommendation appearing in proceedings dated 23 May 2001.

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		Member	

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

	The Board considered the following additional evidence:

	Exhibit E – DD Form 149, dated 22 March 2002
	
	Exhibit F - Prior proceedings

THE BOARD ADDITIONALLY FINDS:

21.  The Board has received information that there were differences on the method of computation of his IDT (inactive duty training) and ADT (active duty training) points which caused different figures to be used in his records.  He requests that his records be corrected to match the figures as complied by Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS).

22.  The calculations as noted on the applicant's NGB Form 23 (National Guard Retirement Points History Statement) shows 27 IDT and 16 ADT retirement points for retirement year 1996-1997.

23.  The 13 February 2002 letter from DFAS, to the applicant, indicates that in their calculations of the correct number of days are 23 IDT days and 32 ADT days. 

THE BOARD ADDITIONALLY CONCLUDES: 

9.  It was the intent of the Board's prior actions to afford the applicant as full and equitable restitution of both his participation and retirement calculations as possible.  Due to differences in the method of calculation and interpretation of the Board's intent there is a difference in the final tabulation of the applicant's IDT and ADT points between the retirement center and DFAS.

10.  As the Board did not specify the number of points for this specific year, it finds that the method of calculation used by DFAS is more in accordance with its intent.  As such, it is appropriate to correct the applicant's records to be consistent with the DFAS calculations and payment.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by amending the Board’s recommendation 1 by adding:

	d.  by showing that for retirement year 1996-1997 the applicant earned 23 inactive duty points and 32 active duty points. 

BOARD VOTE:

__JLP___  __HOF__  __GJW__  AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_    Jennifer L. Prater__
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002071788	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	20020723	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	135.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.