DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTJON OF NAVAL RECORDS
-	   2 NAVY ANNEX
				WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

								TRG
                         Docket No: 3662-06
	24	August	2006

From:	Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:	Secretary of the Navy

Subj:	REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF 

Ref:	(a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl:	(1) Case Summary
              (2) Subject’s naval record

1.	Pursuant. to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps Reserve, filed an application with this Board requesting that his record be corrected to show that he retired with 26 years of active service.
	
	2	The Board consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s a1legations error and injustice on August 2006 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

3.	The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows:

a.	Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b.	Petitioner’s application was filed in a timely manner.

c.	Petitioner entered the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) of the Marine Corps Reserve on 10 September 1979. He enlisted in the Regular Marine Corps on 22 February 1980 and served in enlisted status until 13 December 1990, when he was commissioned. He then served on active duty until he retired, effective 1 February 2005, in the grade of Major (MAJ; 0-4). At that time, he was credited with 25 years, 11’months and 9 days of active service.

d.	Petitioner states that late in 2005, he was told that as of 1 February 2006 he would have over 26 years of active service. He then departed on 126 days of terminal leave. On 27 January 2006 he saw his final DD Form 214 which showed 25 years, 11 months and 9 days of active service. Since he had already made commitments, he retired effective 1 February 2006. He has submitted a copy of a computer print out (Basic Individual Record) which shows that his Pay Entry Base Date (PEBD) and the Armed Forces Active Duty Base Date (AFADBD) are the same. The PEBD is correct because at the time of Petitioner’s entry into the Marine Corps,, time spent in the DEP counted for longevity pay purposes. However, his AFADBD should be 22 February 1980 the first day he actually reported to active duty.
I-,

e.	Attached to enclosure (1) is an advisory opinion from Headquarters Marine Corps which states, in part, as follows:

The miscomputation appears to be based on the incorrect use of his ... (PEBD) rather than his (AFADBD). (He) states that he discovered the miscalculation on 27 January 2006 but did not contact this Headquarters until seven days after retiring.

Unfortunately, it is the opinion of this Headquarters that (he) was retired under proper authority as he requested. Therefore, we must regretfully recommend that the petition not be granted favorable consideration and no correction of (his) record is warranted.

Attached to the advisory opinion is an E-mail which sets forth the facts of the case. It concludes by stating that Petitioner would receive approximately $12.00 more per month if he had retired with over 26 years of active service.

f.	The Uniform Retirement Date Act, 5 U.S.C. 8301 required that the effective date of any retirement be the first day of the month.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. It was clearly Petitioner’s intent to retire with over 26 years of active duty, but he was prevented from doing so because of an erroneous computer entry and the resulting bad advice as to the proper retirement date. Given his many years of excellent service, the Board concludes that his record should be corrected to show that he retired with over 26 years of active service.

This action can be accomplished by correcting the record to show that he was not retired on 1 February 2006 but continued to serve on active duty until he retired effective on 1 March 2006.

The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed on Petitioner’s naval record so that all future reviewers will understand the reason for the change in the retirement date.

RECONNENDATION:

a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that he was not retired effective on 1 February 2006 but continued to serve on active duty until he was retired effective on 1 March
2006.

b. That this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner’s naval record.

4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN	ALAN E. GOLDSMITH
Recorder	Acting Recorder

5. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your review and action.

								
   W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Reviewed and approved:

Robert T. Cali
Assistant General Counsel
Manpower and Reserve Affairs)