Entitlement to Military Pay and Allowances

An enlisted member appealed the Claims Group's denial of his claim for backpay and certain other monetary benefits he sought incident to the upgrading of his discharge from the Navy. The claimant was discharged under less than honorable conditions. He later applied for and received an upgrading of his discharge under the Department of Defense Discharge Review Program. His records were corrected to reflect a discharge under honorable conditions but no change was made to the discharge date. Because of the upgrading of his discharge, the claimant sought backpay, including all pay and allowances he would have received had he remained in the Navy, and other compensation for the embarrassment and lack of vocational opportunity he allegedly sustained in civilian life. Concerning the claim for backpay, the upgrading of the claimant's discharge did not constitute a basis for authorizing payment. An enlisted member's discharge terminates any contractual relationship with the Government with regard to entitlement to pay and allowances. A subsequent change in the character of the discharge does not render the original discharge null and void but merely results in a correction of the member's records to reflect the change. For an enlisted member to receive backpay, it is not merely the character of the discharge which must be changed, but the original discharge must be deemed illegal. The case record revealed that the correction of the claimant's record did not result in a change in his discharge date nor in a voiding of his discharge. Therefore, GAO concluded that the claimant was lawfully discharged. Since his entitlement to pay ceased upon his discharge, he had no entitlement to backpay. While the upgrading of the discharge does not entitle a member to backpay, it may entitle him to certain veterans' benefits. However, GAO has no authority to determine entitlement to those benefits. Regarding the member's claim for damages for embarrassment and lack of vocational opportunity, there is no legal authority under which GAO could authorize payment of such damages in a situation of this type. Accordingly, the action of the Claims Group was affirmed.