PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            13 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034820

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Ms. Sherri V. Ward		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 the separation code contained on his report of separation (DD Form 214) be changed to reflect a code that will allow him to keep his separation pay.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that at the time of separation he was authorized to receive one-half separation pay.  However, when he tried to apply for a Federal job he was informed that he had an outstanding debt to the Army on his credit report.  He further states that he never received notification of such a debt and when he contacted officials at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) they informed him that the notices went to his sister’s address in Oklahoma.  However, his sister had not resided at that address since 1996.  They further informed him that he was erroneously paid one-half separation pay because the separation code used on his DD Form 214 does not authorize the payment of separation pay.  At that point he was advised to apply to the Board. In support of his application he submits a copy of the DFAS debt notice and his DD Form 214.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 1 October 1991, was promoted to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 November 1993, that he served as a carpentry and mason specialist, and that he was honorably released from active duty on 12 August 1998 upon completion of his required service.  He had served 6 years, 10 months, and 12 days of total active service and was issued a separation code of “MBK”.  He was also issued a Reentry (RE) code of “3”. 

5.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates that he was authorized one-half separation pay in the amount of $5,877.88 and that he was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).

6.  The letter from the DFAS provided by the applicant with his application indicates that he was overpaid for 38 days of terminal leave when he had only 15 days of accrued leave and that he was erroneously paid one-half separation pay because the separation code “MBK” prevents the payment of separation pay. His total debt to the government is $4,301.10.

7. Army Regulation 635-5-1 implements Department of Defense (DOD) policy for standardization of entries on the DD Form 214 and provides the separation codes to be used and the authorities and reasons for their usage and control.  It states, in pertinent part, that enlisted soldiers who are involuntarily separated at ETS will receive a separation code of “LBK” and an RE code of “3”.

8.  Army Regulation 601-210 an explanation of RE codes.  It states, in pertinent part, that RE Code “3” applies to persons who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at the time of separation, but that the disqualification is waivable.
CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It appears based on the fact that he was issued an RE Code of “3” that he was not fully qualified for continuous service at the time of separation and was involuntarily released from active duty on his ETS.  Accordingly, he should have received a separation code of "LBK" instead of the separation code “MBK” that he received.  Accordingly it would be in the interest of justice that his records be corrected at this time.  

2.  The applicant’s contention that the DFAS sent the notice to the wrong address appears to be without merit.  The address listed on his DD Form 214 at the time of separation is an address provided by the individual being separated at the time of separation.  The applicant separated in 1998; therefore, it appears that he provided the wrong address.

3.  In regards to the applicant’s debt as it relates to his leave, the Board finds that he should repay any debt associated with an overpayment of leave because it is an individual responsibility as well to keep track of one’s leave account on a monthly basis to ensure that they don’t lose leave.  To grant the applicant more leave than he had accrued would afford him a benefit not afforded to others in similar circumstances.  

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the separation code of the individual concerned is “LBK” instead of “MBK”.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__sw____  ___fe___  __cla____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______Fred Eichorn______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034820	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/04/13	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.  283	128.0000	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.