RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03940
INDEX CODE: 128.10
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The indebtedness of $599.95 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 $599.95. 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 chief master sergeant, having been promoted to that grade on
1 Apr 00. He is credited with 27 years 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 Allentown, PA. He submitted a
number of interim vouchers, none of which reflected his trips back to
Allentown, PA. As a result he was overpaid in the amount of $599.95.
_________________________________________________________________
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 6 Feb
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 Allentown, PA. 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 Allentown. 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 $3,223.62, of which $3,222.62 was disbursed to Bank
of America to pay his government travel card.
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.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL 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 Allentown, PA.
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 $599.95. 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 $599.95 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-
2003-03940 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 17 Nov 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFRC/FMFQ, undated.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Feb 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ USAF/DPRCE, dated 20 May 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 04.
CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03939
_________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ USAF/DPRCE noted that during his activation, the applicant received TDY entitlements in accordance with the JFTR. HQ USAF/DPRCE also noted the applicant submitted 15 accrual (advance) vouchers, none of which reflected the trips back to Stanhope. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-02949
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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-01560
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...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2011-089
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...
# 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064532C070421
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
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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-02325
HQ AFRC/JAR recommends denial of the applicants request for credit of one travel day following completion of his active duty tour at Ramstein AB, Germany ending in Oct 2009. JAR states the applicant was directed to end his tour and complete his travel from Ramstein AB, Germany within the dates of the tour (1 to 31 Oct 2009). Although the applicant has provided evidence that he travelled after the end dates of his order, other than his own uncorroborated assertions, he has not provided any...
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
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...