RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01560
INDEX CODE: 128.10
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He receive a full refund of $3553.00 that was collected as part of an
error for a travel debt.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
While on temporary duty with five other individuals to ----- Air Base
(AB), Italy, from May 99 to Aug 99, he was initially scheduled to stay
on base with entitlement to government meals. Upon his arrival at ----
- AB, he was given a non-availability of government quarters to stay
off base. At this time, he notified the Personnel Readiness Unit and
received authorization for two rental cars and commercial meals to
maintain team integrity and his orders were immediately amended.
After two weeks, lodging became available and he moved back on base.
Several requests were made to amend the orders to reflect his
entitlement to government meals, but were never completed.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded
statement, documentation pertaining to his travel, including vouchers
and orders, and a copy of the Board’s decision involving a similar
case.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
senior master sergeant, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Jan
01. His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 29 Aug
80.
Applicant incurred an indebtedness of $3,553.00 as a result of an
erroneous payment of travel pay for his temporary duty (TDY) to Italy
from 13 May 99 to 14 Aug 99.
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 auth full per diem, for off base
lodging and commercial meals to maintain team integrity. Team is auth
two rental cars and reimbursement for fuel." This amendment was
published in error; however, it resulted in the applicant receiving
the full meals and incidental rate for the duration of his deployment.
The applicant was aware of this error and requested amendments be
published to change the per diem rate on two separate occasions.
Unfortunately, the orders were never changed back. During a post
audit review of his voucher, it was discovered that he was overpaid in
per diem in the amount of $3553.00. He submitted a remission of this
debt to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, which was
subsequently denied.
According to AF/DPPCC, the applicant was fully aware of his
entitlement and knew that he was not entitled to the increased per
diem. However, base level personnel should have also known better not
to amend the order or to pay per diem not authorized. Therefore,
AF/DPPCC recommended that the applicant's records be corrected to
reflect that his remission be partially approved for $1,776.50.
A complete copy of AF/DPPCC evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
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 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 error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
available evidence, we are sufficiently persuaded that corrective
action is warranted. We do not agree with the office of primary
responsibility (OPR) that the applicant should be granted only partial
relief. Based on the available evidence, we believe the applicant
made more than a good faith effort to have his orders amended to
change his per diem rate on two separate occasions, but the
responsible parties failed to do so. Since, in our view, the
applicant exercised due diligence in resolving this matter, we
recommend the applicant's records be corrected to reflect he applied
for a remission of his indebtedness of $3553.00 and his request was
approved by competent authority.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 7 Mar 02, he
applied for a remission of his indebtedness of $3553.00, incurred as a
result of the overpayment of travel pay, and his request was approved
by competent authority.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-01560 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
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 May 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFRBA Director, dated 2 Apr 02, w/atch.
Exhibit C. Letter, AF/DPPCC, dated 20 May 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 04.
CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
Panel Chair
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
FROM: SAF/MR
SUBJECT: AFBCMR Case of , AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-01560
I have carefully reviewed all the circumstances of this case and do
not agree with the AFBCMR panel’s recommendation to grant the applicant
total relief concerning the remission of his indebtedness of $3553.00.
The evidence of record indicates the applicant incurred his
indebtedness as a result of an erroneous payment of travel pay for his
temporary duty (TDY) to Italy. When he arrived in Italy, government
billeting was not available; therefore, his orders were amended to allow
for full per diem for off-base lodging and commercial meals. Subsequently,
billeting became available and the applicant moved on base and received the
commercial rate for his meals while living in government billeting.
The AFBCMR panel is of the opinion he exercised due diligence in
resolving this matter. However, while it appears he did make a good faith
effort, I agree with the office of primary responsibility (OPR) that he
should not be absolved of any responsibility. In this respect, the
applicant was knowledgeable of his entitlements and it does not appear he
continued to follow up to ensure his orders were properly amended.
Furthermore, there is no evidence he pursued the matter further upon
receipt of his travel settlement. Since he was aware he was receiving
monies to which he was not entitled, he should have, at the very least,
retained the erroneous funds for eventual refund to the government.
In view of the foregoing, I agree with the OPR that the applicant
should only be afforded partial relief. Accordingly, I direct his request
for a remission of his indebtedness be partially approved in the amount of
$1,776.50. In arriving at my decision, I am aware that an earlier panel of
the Board granted partial relief in an identical case.
MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ
Assistant Secretary
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
AFBCMR BC-2004-01560
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 , be corrected to show that on 7 Mar 02, he applied
for a remission of his indebtedness of $3553.00, incurred as a result
of the overpayment of travel pay, and his request was partially
approved in the amount of $1,776.50 by competent authority; and, that
he be reimbursed any monies collected in excess of $1,776.50.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01031
When he arrived in Italy, billeting was not available; therefore, his orders were amended to allow for full per diem for off-base lodging and commercial meals. On 2 Apr 2002, the applicant's request for remission of his indebtedness of $3315.50 was considered and denied by the Director, Air Force Review Boards Agency (AFRBA) (Exhibit B). However, base level personnel should have also known better not to amend the order or to pay per diem not authorized.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01180
On 2 Apr 02, the applicant's request for remission of his indebtedness of $2903.50 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 auth full per diem, for off base lodging and commercial meals to maintain team integrity. To remedy the error, the...
On 3 March 1995, HQ ARPC published a “Request and Authorization for Change of Administrative Orders” and upon receipt, he telephone HQ ARPC to confirm that IDTs, and related billeting/travel expenses, were authorized. He was denied reimbursement of expenses related to authorized IDT performed 12 - 18 March 1995. Applicant was paid authorized reimbursements for his annual tour for the period 5 - 12 March 1995 and was denied all expenses incurred during his IDT period IAW the Joint Federal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018503
p. A DA Form 1559 (IG Action Request), dated 22 April 2008, the applicant submitted for an investigation into why his original orders were for PCS and not TDY for his 179 days and why it was not amended in time and payment for his 10 days AT in January 2008. q. The evidence of record shows the applicant, while already on orders for 98 days, was issued ADT PCS orders for 179 days. Therefore, he is not entitled to amendment of his PCS orders.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014992
HRC Orders R-02-081755, dated 22 February 2010, ordered her to active duty in an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) status and assigned her to Company B, 399th Support Hospital, Taunton, MA, with a reporting date of 1 June 2010 under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 12301(d). The applicant provided: a. a Days Inn hotel receipt, dated 26 September 2012, that shows her lodging for the period 24 through 26 September 2012; b. a travel query that shows her travels during the period 15...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018512
The applicant states she was ordered to active duty from North Carolina where she resided in December 2006 to perform a contingency operations temporary tour of active duty (COTTAD) in support of Operation Noble Eagle with duty at the Pentagon. DFAS's multiple letters stated her claim for per diem for meals was not authorized since she resided within commuting distance to the Pentagon. She maintained residency in both a local address her HOR in Maryland and the residence in North...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003635C070208
By memorandum dated 25 June 2004, the Chief, Defense Military Pay Office, Fort Benning, GA recommended the applicant be reimbursed $8,260.90 for his TDY travel expenses. The applicant's calculations of his out-of-pocket expenses did not include the $1,878.50 for his rental car because DFAS reimbursed him for that particular TDY expense. The applicant’s military records may be corrected to show his PCS and TDY orders were amended to include the sentence “If officials at Fort Benning, GA...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051454C070420
He also concluded that no reimbursement exists because there was no evidence of “official” travel supported by official orders for the period of time the applicant was attached for duty at Fort Bragg. k. The DOHA, based on Comptroller General decisions and provisions of the JFTR, denied the applicant reimbursement for per diem for the period the applicant was attached and was present at Fort Bragg because it was determined to be disciplinary travel. c. Notwithstanding the determination...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 10334-05
They agreed with the reasoning of the Claims Appeal Board that “in the absence of proof that (you) spent the erroneous per-diem payments for their intended purpose, waiver of the remaining $17,351.26 is not appropriate.” Thus they found no error or injustice in the action to recoup the $17,351.26 in erroneous per-diem payments.Accordingly, your application has been denied. The activation orders authorized per diem; however, the Marine Corps cannot be liable for the erroneous actions of its...
IAW the Joint Federal Travel Regulation, Vol 1, par U5705B, “…a member is not entitled to TLE due to a move when entering active duty (except for enlisted members reporting to their first PDS).” The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Traffic Management Division, AFPC/DPAMP, evaluated the applicant’s request for remission of the debt for the unauthorized airline ticket. The Board does not agree with the recommendation made by AF/DPRCC to deny the applicant reimbursement for TLE. ...