PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           17 October 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002076962

	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	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson 		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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 his $30,000.00 debt be remitted.

3.  The applicant states that his request to have his debt administratively remitted was disapproved, which was unjust and will cause undue strain to his quality of life and ability to perform his duties as a recruiter.

4.  In support of his request he submits a letter to his elected representative.  In that letter he relates how he opted to take a career-status bonus referred to as REDUX.  This bonus was offered to enlisted soldiers who have an initial entry date of on or after 1 August 1986.  If accepted by the soldier and approved by the appropriate authority, the soldier will receive $30,000.00 (less taxes) on the 15th anniversary of their initial enlistment, in exchange for a 10 percent reduction in their retired pay.  The applicant states that he believed that he was eligible for this bonus, as did the chief of the enlisted management section who certified his request for the bonus.  He was paid the bonus and spent the money to 
re-establish his credit after a financially debilitating separation from his spouse.  He was then informed that he did not qualify for the bonus, since his Date Initial Entry Military Service (DIEMS) is the date he enlisted in the Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program (DEP), not the date he enlisted in the Regular Army.  As a result, he is faced with a recoupment of the bonus which will result in approximately 1/3 of his pay (about $750.00 a month) being withheld from his pay for the 40 months he has left in his military career.  The applicant continues that he has offered to repay the debt, but have it prorated through his retired pay; he has requested to have his DIEMS adjusted to match the date he entered active duty; and he has requested that his debt be lessened to an amount which he can afford to pay back.  All of these requests have been denied.

5.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the DEP on 28 July 1986, and into the Regular Army on 1 August 1986.

6.  The applicant has served continuously, being promoted to pay grade E-5, and is currently performing duties as a recruiter.

7.  The Department of Defense Pay Manual (DODPM), paragraph 10101t, states for a Regular Component, time spent in the DEP is creditable only if he or she enlisted in the DEP prior to 1 January 1985.

8.  In accordance with the Department of the Army G-1 Retirement Services Homepage, A DIEMS date is the earliest date of enlistment, induction, or appointment in a regular or reserve component of a uniformed service as a commissioned officer, warrant officer, or enlisted member.  PL 106-65 moved soldiers with DIEMS dates on or after 1 Aug 86 from the REDUX formula to the 

High-3 formula.  However, soldiers in this group who are eligible for retention to 20 years can now elect to use REDUX and receive a $30,000 CSB in their 15th year (called a CSB/REDUX election).  If they accept the $30,000 CSB, they must agree to serve a total of 20 years of active duty.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board does not consider the denial of the applicant’s request to have his debt remitted unjust or unreasonable.  The applicant was given a large sum of money in exchange for a reduction in his retired pay.  If the Government cannot reduce the applicant's retired pay, then it is fair and equitable to recoup the money the applicant was given.

2.  However, the applicant and the personnel specialists processing his request, understandably thought his DIEMS was 1 August 1986, since DEP service was not creditable at that time.

3.  As stated above, the Board does not believe it fair or equitable to the Government to give the applicant the $30,000.00 bonus without re-establishing the terms of the agreement which resulted in that payment.  This may only be accomplished by voiding the applicant’s enlistment in the DEP on 28 July 1986.  This course of action, adjusting the applicant’s DIEMS, was suggested by the applicant himself to his command as a method of resolving the debt, so is accepted as an alternative to his request to have his debt remitted.

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:

	a.  showing that the 28 July 1986 DEP enlistment of the individual concerned is null and void;

	b.  showing that he initially entered into the military on 1 August 1986;

	c.  adjusting his DIEMS accordingly; and

	d.  showing that he was fully eligible for the REDUX bonus he received based upon his DIEMS.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

________  ________  ________  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002076962	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20021017	
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.	128.10	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.