PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           27 January 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999032801

	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.  

	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, 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 that he receive retired pay retroactive to 31 July 1996, that his finance records be corrected to show he is retired, and that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) take action to correct his credit rating.

3.  The applicant states that he retired from an active guard/reserve (AGR) status effective 31 July 1996.  He received his retirement orders, orders assigning him to the Transition Point, Fort Knox, KY, and orders assigning him to the Retired Reserve.  He was told his annual retired pay would be $19,082.20, or $1,590.18 a month.  In August 1996, he received two payments which he thought was the beginning of his retired pay.  He received a letter from the Fort Knox Transition Center requesting some documents and also requesting that he contact the finance office.  He did not do so at that time because he thought he was receiving his retired pay.  In 1997, he received a letter of indebtedness from DFAS and found out at this time that the two payments he had received were active duty pay, not retired pay.  His request for waiver of the debt was disapproved and in 1998 his tax refund was applied to the debt.  His credit has been damaged.  In 1999, he found out DFAS was holding his retired pay because they were waiting for him to sign a new Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) election.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Army National Guard in 1975 and was commissioned in 1977.  He was ordered to active duty in an AGR status on 24 May 1982 and performed duties for the State of Wisconsin. His request for early retirement was approved in May 1996 with an effective date of 31 July 1996.

5.  Orders dated 25 July 1996 assigned the applicant to the U. S. Army Transition Point, Fort Knox, KY with a report date of 29 July 1996.  He was directed to report for his preprocessing appointment on 30 July 1996.  He never reported to Fort Knox for retirement processing.  

6.  The applicant was placed on the retired list on 31 July 1996.  In August 1996, he was erroneously paid base pay and allowances for the period August 1996 in the amount of $2,215.75.  In September 1996, Fort Knox requested he process through the Transition Center and contact the finance office.  The applicant states he never did so.

7.  At some point, DFAS charged the applicant with a debt for the $2,215.75 in base pay and allowances erroneously paid to him.  He requested a waiver of the indebtedness.  His request was denied in February 1998.  In October 1998, his tax refund was applied to the debt.  

8.  The correspondence requesting the applicant complete an SBP election form is not available.  On 1 October 1999, he elected to decline the SBP.  

9.  In a conversation with an analyst with the Board on 28 December 1999, DFAS verified that the applicant has no retired pay account with them.  They did not even have a skeleton record on him, indicating the local finance office never sent them any paperwork to show he retired.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board concludes there is no evidence of Government error in this case.

2.  The applicant was given written orders, with at least one written follow-up notice, to report to the Fort Knox, KY Transition Point for out-processing.  He never followed those orders so the local finance office never sent the paperwork regarding his retirement status to DFAS and so a retired account was never opened for him.

3.  The Board concludes it was the applicant’s responsibility to notice, at least within the first few months, that the initial payment of $2,215.75 he received was too great to be one month of retired pay and too little to be two months of retired pay.  At that time he should have followed the directive in his separation orders and contacted the Fort Knox Transition Center.  The resulting indebtedness was the consequence of his own irresponsibility.

4.  However, the applicant does have retirement orders and so is entitled to retired pay.  Although there is no evidence to show that he elected or declined to participate in the SBP in 1996, he did decline in writing in 1999 and it would be in the interest of justice to make his declination retroactive to 1 August 1996, the date of his retirement.

5.  In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the applicant is entitled to retired pay retroactive to             1 August 1996.

2.  That the remainder of the applicant’s debt be canceled by applying the remaining portion to his due retired pay.

3.  That the records show the applicant declined the SBP effective 1 August 1996.

4.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

_inw____  __sk____  __eja___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Irene N. Wheelwright
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999032801	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000127	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.14	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.