RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01335
INDEX CODE:128.10
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His indebtedness to the government in the amount of $7674.65 be waived and
he be reimbursed for the four installments of $250 that he has already
paid.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and
the evidence submitted in support of the appeal is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The 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. Accordingly, there is no need to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Compensation and Entitlements, AF/DPRCC reviewed the application
and recommends denial. DPRCC agrees with the Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) ruling that the applicant should have been aware that
there was no change in the housing allowance upon the arrival of his spouse
and that the collection of the overpayment would not be against equity and
good conscience, nor would it be contrary to the best interest of the
United States (see Exhibit B).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant responded and states that on his second visit to the finance
office, when his spouse inprocessed to the base, the finance technician who
updated his pay and allowance information to reflect the fact that she was
no longer in the CONUS, failed to update his housing entitlements, which
caused the erroneous payments of housing allowance. It was his third visit
in which he reported the error to them. The advisory makes it seem like
finance personnel discovered the error.
Applicant reiterates that he cannot understand why his waiver request was
not approved. The error was admittedly caused by the finance office and he
immediately reported the error when he discovered it. In doing so, he did
not fraud the government, he was not at fault or misrepresented himself in
any way, and he acted in good faith. Since the overpayment was not his
fault, and he meets all the requirements for a waiver. Repayment of the
remaining amount will only serve to decrease his faith in the organization
that he loves so much. In these days of challenging retention, high morale
should be in the best interest of the Air Force (see Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. It is the opinion of the Board
majority that the error in the applicant’s pay records, which led to his
overpayment of housing allowance, was not a result of any act or
misrepresentation on his part. The Board majority believes that in fact,
he promptly reported to the finance office when his spouse arrived and
initiated the appropriate action to ensure his pay records were correct;
and, he subsequently reported the error in his records immediately after he
discovered it. The Board majority believes that he made every reasonable
effort to ensure his pay records were accurate and that the errors in his
records were not his fault, but that of the finance technicians.
Accordingly, the board majority recommends that his records be corrected to
the extent indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that for the purpose of computing basic
allowance for housing (BAH) entitlements only, his spouse's date of arrival
at Aviano Air Base, Italy, was 31 May 2000, vice 4 August 1999.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 31 Jul 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
Ms. Nancy W. Drury, Member
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
Ms. Drury and Ms. Romine voted to correct the records, as recommended. Mr.
Roj voted to deny the applicant’s request in its entirety and elected to
submit a minority report (see Exhibit E).
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Apr 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AF/DPRCC, dated 18 Jul 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 29 Jun 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Jul 01.
Exhibit E. Minority Report, dated 1 Aug 01.
JOSEPH A. ROJ
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 01-01335
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that for the purpose of
computing basic allowance for housing (BAH) entitlements only, his spouse's
date of arrival at Aviano Air Base, Italy, was 31 May 2000, vice 4 August
1999.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03756
After the birth of her second child, she and her fiancée went to the Finance office to update the information on her second child. She also could not expect to receive BAH with dependent spouse BAH when she had no housing costs. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, the Board majority agrees with the Air Force office of primary responsibility that the applicant reasonably could not expect to receive BAH at the with- dependent rate...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02839
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02839 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be granted a remission of her debt associated with the overpayment of Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) and Family Separation Allowance (FSA). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Finance...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02141 INDEX CODE: 128.14 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be authorized Temporary Lodging Expense (TLE) for 5 days at $34.00 per day. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was...
In support of his request applicant provided copies of his DD Forms 2367, DD Form 2789, Waiver/Remission of Indebtedness Application, and the Remission Decision. He had an established date of separation (DOS) and a date for his expiration of term of service (ETS) of 22 November 2000. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 Nov 00.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 040006368C070208
A 13 February 2004 Pay Adjustment Authorization shows that the applicant was overpaid for BAH (basic allowance for housing) in the amount of $23,102.91 from 8 January 1999 to 4 November 2003; and for FSH (Family Separation Housing) in the amount of $223.33 from 10 July 1999 to 16 September 1999. The Commandant of the Noncommissioned Officer Academy at Fort Eustis had previously requested that the applicant’s indebtedness be cancelled, stating that the debt would cause serious hardship for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017641
The applicant states she was informed by the Fort Campbell Defense Military Pay Office, Fort Campbell, KY, that the BAH was not corrected and she had a BAH overpayment debt. However, there is no evidence in her available records and she has not provided evidence which shows the Fort Campbell Defense Military Pay Office was in error when it approved BAH for her based on her DA Form 5960. However, there is no evidence in the applicant's available record that shows the Fort Campbell Defense...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02619
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02619 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her debt which resulted from receiving Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) with dependent rate from 31 Mar 10 through 30 Apr 12 be cancelled. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DFAS-IN recommends approving the applicants request based on the Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) that states the applicant was entitled to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059889C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be reimbursed $6,702.67 collected from his earnings to pay back a debt to the government for overpayment of Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). The applicant was also informed by the letter that $6,702.67 of the debt collected prior to the commander’s suspension of the debt collection, could not be considered for remission or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072809C070403
The applicant’s overpayment of BAH during the period 1 July 2001 through 30 September 2001 totaled $500.00. The applicant provided a memorandum, dated 3 December 2001, from her Commanding Officer recommending approval of her request for remission of debt. That office also states that approval of the collected portion of the applicant’s debt, $420.53, could not be granted based on Army Regulation 600-4, paragraph 1-11(b)(1).