Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03939
Original file (BC-2003-03939.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03939
            INDEX CODE:  128.10

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The indebtedness of $1,164.60 he incurred be repaid.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The indebtedness, which has been repaid, resulted from the failure  of
another  individual  to  notify  members  of  his  squadron   of   the
requirement to claim trips home for personal reasons on  their  travel
claims.  As a result, he was overpaid $1,164.60.  He  could  not  have
reasonably known he was not entitled to the money.  Had he been  aware
of the restriction, he would have not returned home so often.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  documentation
pertaining to  his  request  for  waiver  of  indebtedness  and  other
documents associated with the matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
the applicant is currently serving in the Air  Force  Reserve  in  the
grade of lieutenant colonel, having been promoted to that grade on  12
Sep 02.  He is credited with  21 years,  11 months,  and  21  days  of
satisfactory Federal service for retirement.

Available documentation indicates the applicant was activated from  10
Nov 01 through 3 Mar 03, to the 913th Airlift Wing  Willow  Grove  Air
Reserve Station (ARS).  While in a temporary  duty  (TDY)  status,  he
made several trips to his home in Stanhope, NJ.  He  submitted  number
of advance vouchers,  none  of  which  reflected  his  trips  back  to
Stanhope, NJ.  As a result he was overpaid in the amount of $1,164.00.


_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/FMFQ indicated there is no regulatory basis which allows for  the
reimbursement of lodging costs while a member returns  to  their  home
for personal reasons.  The  Joint  Federal  Travel  Regulation  (JFTR)
provides for a method  of  reimbursement  for  costs  associated  with
returning home for personal reasons.  However, lodging  costs  at  the
duty station are not reimbursable during this period when  the  member
returns home.  Also, per diem is not payable when the member is at his
home of record, provided these days are not  considered  travel  days.
In addition to regulatory restrictions, this issue  was  addressed  in
the Headquarters (HQ) Air Force mobilization entitlement message dated
16 Nov 01.

AFRC/FMFQ noted the  applicant’s  statement  he  was  given  erroneous
information  and/or  other  individuals  failed  to  provide  accurate
information.   However,  they  indicated   the   Comptroller   General
Decisions have  found  a  member’s  lack  of  knowledge  of  a  travel
regulation does not establish entitlement to a payment not  authorized
by law or regulation.

A complete copy of the AFRC/FMFQ evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  16
Jan 04 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAF/DPRCE noted that during his activation, the applicant received
TDY entitlements in accordance with the JFTR.  While at  Willow  Grove
ARS, he made several trips to his home in Stanhope, NJ.   Since  these
trips occurred while he was in a TDY status, they were required to  be
reflected on the final travel voucher.

HQ USAF/DPRCE also noted the applicant submitted 15 accrual  (advance)
vouchers, none of which reflected the trips  back  to  Stanhope.   Had
these trips been  reflected,  his  accrual  payment  would  have  been
adjusted to account  for  these  trips.   Since  the  trips  were  not
reflected on the accrual vouchers, the applicant was overpaid  on  his
travel accruals.   This  overpayment  was  corrected  when  the  final
settlement  voucher  was  submitted  and  processed  and  showed   the
applicant received $2,053.38.

HQ USAF/DPRCE indicated that since the final  settlement  voucher  was
properly computed and a debt was never established, they are unable to
provide  a  relief  recommendation.   While  it  is  unfortunate   the
applicant received  incorrect  information,  it  is  a  rule  of  long
standing that the government is not liable for  incorrect  information
given by its officers, agents, or employees, and  such  misinformation
cannot provide a basis for payment in excess of legal entitlements.

A complete copy of the HQ USAF/DPRCE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  28
May 04 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (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 error or injustice.  The evidence of record indicates
that during his activation, and while in a TDY status,  the  applicant
made several trips from Willow Grove ARS to his home in Stanhope,  NJ.
Also during his activation, he submitted a number  of  interim  travel
vouchers, none of which reflected his trips to his home, resulting  in
overpayments in the amount of $1,164.60.  The  applicant  contends  he
was not aware of the requirement to reflect  his  trips  home  on  his
interim vouchers, which was  the  failure  of  another  individual  to
notify him and other members of his squadron of their need to  do  so.
After a thorough review of the facts and circumstances of  this  case,
we are not persuaded that any corrective action is warranted.  We note
the overpayments were done on the interim vouchers and  considered  to
be merely estimates of the expenses he might incur in conjunction with
his TDY.  Therefore, they were considered advance  payments  and  were
legal and proper.  The overpayments in the amount  of  $1,164.60  were
corrected when the applicant’s final settlement voucher was submitted.
 Based on the evidence available, we believe  the  final  voucher  was
properly computed in accordance with the governing regulation and that
no erroneous overpayments occurred.  In view of the foregoing, and  in
the absence of  sufficient  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-03939 in Executive Session on 29 Jun 04, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
      Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
      Mr. James E. Short, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Nov 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFRC/FMFQ, undated.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jan 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ USAF/DPRCE, dated 24 May 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 04.




                                   CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
                                   Panel Chair



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03940

    Original file (BC-2003-03940.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 6 Feb 04 for review and response. The evidence of record indicates that during his activation, and while in a TDY status, the applicant made several trips from Willow Grove ARS to his home in Allentown, PA. Also during his activation, he submitted a number of interim travel vouchers, none of which reflected his trips...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1997 | 9700442

    Original file (9700442.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    # DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-00442 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: .. of the Departmeat of the Air Force relating to- e corrected to show that he had no other alternative but to mercial travel office (CTO) not under...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2011-089

    Original file (2011-089.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated January 12, 2012, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record to show that he is not indebted to the government for over $9,000.00 resulting from an alleged overpayment on travel claims that he submitted during a period of active duty. The letter stated the following: [The applicant’s] travel debt resulted from being paid twice for the same periods of travel in 2004. The Coast Guard...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01560

    Original file (BC-2004-01560.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    Several requests were made to amend the orders to reflect his entitlement to government meals, but were never completed. On 2 Apr 02, the applicant’s request for remission of his indebtedness of $3,553.00 was considered and denied by the Director, Air Force Review Boards Agency (AFRBA) (Exhibit B). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AF/DPPCC noted that as a result of non-availability, the applicant's orders were amended to read "Members...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102480

    Original file (0102480.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    His Traffic Management Office (TMO) told him to have his orders reflect that he could purchase his own airline ticket and then he could purchase a ticket. His claim for reimbursement for the airline ticket was denied because it had not been procured through a government contracted commercial travel office (CTO). OLGA M. CRERAR Panel Chair AFBCMR 01-02480 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064532C070421

    Original file (2001064532C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant’s pay records show that the debt was collected in December 2001. No justification has been established to reimburse the applicant the overpayment collected against this just debt.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00002

    Original file (BC-2003-00002.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The overpayment was the result of his failure to list the travel advances he received when he filed his final travel voucher. However,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-02949

    Original file (BC-2001-02949.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    In order to qualify for the bonus, members in this AFSC located at McGuire had to reenlist for a period of six years (the applicant had reenlisted for two years on 13 Sep 01). In a letter dated 5 Oct 01 (Exhibit A), the UCA advised he had intended to counsel the applicant to delay reenlisting until the new bonus list came out on 1 Oct 01 to see if her AFSC would be on it. However, she was no longer eligible for the reenlistment bonus as she had since been reassigned to Willow Grove ARB...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102200

    Original file (0102200.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant’s counsel responded to the Air Force evaluation and indicates that he and the applicant believe that the documents presented by the applicant establish that a clear injustice occurred when the applicant received an Article 15 for allegedly being derelict in the performance of his duties. Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03076

    Original file (BC-2002-03076.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    She didn’t receive a copy of the voucher at the time it was filed. By letter dated 17 October 2002, the Directorate of Debt and Claims Management, DFAS-Denver, notified the applicant that her request for waiver was denied. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DFAS-POCC/DE states that the Remission and Waiver Branch informed them that the applicant had filed a waiver application and they provided a copy of the letter that was sent to the...