RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02071
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The debt he incurred due to an overpayment of basic pay 
($3,164.39) be remitted.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He accomplished a DD Form 2789 (Waiver/Remission of Indebtedness 
Application) and was advised by the Remissions Board that his 
request could not be processed because he was not on active duty 
at the time of overpayment.  The remission was requested due to 
a substantiated financial hardship identified on AF IMT 
2451 (Financial Statement – Remission of Indebtedness).  The 
overpayment occurred when he transitioned from AGR status to 
traditional guardsman status.  He further states he was not 
afforded the opportunity to repay the overture in a timely 
manner.  A permanent change of station (PCS), moving costs and 
financial hardship made it unfeasible to repay the debt.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides a DD Form 
2789, AF IMT 2451, and a letter from the SAF Remissions Board.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 21 December 2012, the SAF Remissions Board denied the 
applicant’s request for remission of indebtedness due to the 
debt resulting after his release from active duty.  
The applicant’s current Master Military Pay Account (MMPA) 
reflects a debt balance of $1,537.23.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, 
extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained 
in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air 
Force at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

DFAS-IN recommends denial.  DFAS states the applicant separated 
from the service on 30 September 2008; however, the debt was not 
posted to the applicant’s pay account until the November 
2008 update.  This resulted in payment being issued for mid-
month and end of month for October.  The applicant claims the 
report of discharge compounded by his DITY move put him into a 
financial hardship.  As the entitlement was never due and that 
DITY moves are reimbursed through travel any financial hardship 
between November 2008 and current is the responsibility of the 
applicant.  There is no evidence that there is a record to be 
corrected.

The DFAS complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 10 May 2013, a copy of the DFAS evaluation was forwarded to 
the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit 
C).  As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office. 

________________________________________________________________
_

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

DFAS-IN recommends denial.  DFAS states that a debt has been 
posted to the applicant’s current MMPA.  There is currently a 
balance due of $1,537.23.

The DFAS complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 17 January 2014, a copy of the DFAS evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit 
E).  As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office. 

________________________________________________________________
_

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  While the 
applicant was overpaid due to an administrative error, the 
evidence does not support that he exercised due diligence in 
reviewing his leave and earning statement for accuracy or took 
reasonable actions after the substantial increase in pay.  
Therefore, we agree with DFAS-IN and adopt its rationale as the 
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the 
victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend favorable 
consideration of this request.

________________________________________________________________
_

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and the 
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of 
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this 
application.

________________________________________________________________
_

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-02071 in Executive Session on 18 February 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 April 2013, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, DFAS-IN, not dated.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 2013.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, DFAS-IN, not dated.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 17 January 2014.




2


3