RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00002
                                        INDEX CODE:  128.02
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                       COUNSEL:  NONE

  XXXXXXXXXXXX                          HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His “Do it Yourself” (DITY) move overpayment debt of $1088.66 be waived.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told he had been overpaid for his DITY  move.   The  error  was  made
either by the  Traffic  Management  Office  (TMO)  or  the  Finance  Office.
Neither office has  been  able  to  explain  why  or  how  this  discrepancy
happened.  He has never received a paid travel voucher so, he was unaware  a
problem existed.  He is not convinced he owes the money.

In support of his application, the applicant submits a personnel  statement,
a copy of his retirement order,  copies  of  his  travel  vouchers,  several
copies  of  Travel  Voucher  Summaries,  and  copies  of   e-mail   messages
concerning his pay discrepancy.  The applicant’s complete  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the military personnel  data  system  (MilPDS),  the  applicant
served 21 years, 8 months and 13 days of active military  service.   He  was
progressively promoted to the rank of technical sergeant (TSgt) effective  1
August 1996.  MILPDS reflects the applicant  retired  effective  1  November
2002.

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 C.

_________________________________________________________________



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

JPPSO-SAT/ECAF recommends denial of  the  applicant’s  waiver  request.   In
conjunction with his retirement, the applicant made  a  personally  procured
movement (PPM) of household goods (HHG) from Mountain Home Air  Force  Base,
Idaho, to Las Vegas, Nevada.  At the time of his application,  he  estimated
the weight of his HHG to be  9,000  pounds.   Based  on  9,000  pounds,  the
estimated gross incentive was determined to  be  $2,684.70.   The  applicant
requested and received an advance operating allowance of $1,695.60.   On  11
September 2002, he was  paid  $2,152.01  ($2,684.70  minus  $532.69  federal
taxes).  The applicant  contacted  the  TMO  to  advise  them  he  had  been
underpaid, as his HHG had  weighed  more  11,000  pounds.   The  applicant’s
incentive was refigured on the maximum authorized weight allowance  for  his
grade, 11,000 pounds, and determined to be $3,281.30.  On 20 November  2002,
an additional $596.60 of reimbursable expenses was approved.

When  recompiling  the  applicant’s  PPM  voucher,  retirement  voucher  and
federal tax withholdings, it was discovered he  had  been  overpaid  in  the
amount of $1,088.66.  An overpayment of $16.03  from  an  earlier  TDY,  the
advance  operating  allowance  of  $1,695.60,  and  the  travel  advance  of
$784.05, had not  been  deducted  prior  to  effecting  payment.   When  the
applicant filed his  travel  voucher,  he  failed  to  list  either  of  his
advances, which led to the overpayment.

The applicant did not provide any information to support he is a  victim  of
an error or injustice.  There are no provisions in policy or law that  would
entitle the applicant to be  paid  more  than  he  is  entitle  to  for  the
movement of household goods or to receive more travel pay than  entitled  to
for the number of miles  traveled.   The  JPPSO-SAT/ECAF  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that before his retirement date,  he  was  informed  he
was overpaid $16.03 on a TDY travel voucher with no detailed explanation  of
what it was.  He contacted the travel pay section and was informed it  would
be taken out of his pay.  He asked for and received an advance for his  DITY
move.  He turned in the travel portion of the move but never  asked  for  or
received an advance.  After he  completed  his  move,  he  filed  his  final
travel voucher in person.  TMO assisted him in completing the  voucher.   He
received the balance from  his  TMO  voucher;  however,  he  never  received
copies of the advance voucher or of the final payment voucher in  the  mail.


When he received the notice that he was overpaid, it  was  a  big  surprise.
He contacted his finance office but his  questions  still  remained  unclear
and unexplained to him.  The finance office advised  him  that  he  had  the
option to file a BCMR application.  The applicant feels finance should  have
caught any discrepancies  with  the  vouchers  while  processing  them.   He
doesn’t feel that he is responsible for providing the burden of proof  since
he never received official copies of his  vouchers  and  the  fact  that  it
wasn’t his mistake.  The applicant’s rebuttal is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the  evidence  of
record, the Board is not persuaded that the applicant has  been  the  victim
of an error or injustice.  The applicant was properly charged  with  a  debt
as a result of an overpayment for transportation of his HHG and  travel  pay
in connection with his retirement.  The overpayment was the  result  of  his
failure to list the travel advances he received  when  he  filed  his  final
travel voucher.  The applicant’s assertions concerning the  actions  of  TMO
officials and his contention that he did  not  receive  a  voucher  for  the
advances are noted.  However, he has provided no  evidence  showing  he  did
not receive the advance payments and the  proper  completion  of  the  final
voucher was his responsibility.  Therefore, we agree with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility  and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.   Accordingly,  we  find  no
compelling basis upon which to relieve the applicant of  his  obligation  to
reimburse the government for the overpayment.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of material error  or  injustice;  that  the  application  was
denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 28 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
            Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
            Ms. Martha Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2003-00002
was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 24 Dec 02.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, JPPSO-SAT/ECAF, dated 14 Feb 03.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Feb 03.
     Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, undated.



                                  PATRICIA D. VESTAL
                                  Panel Chair