RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01267
            INDEX CODE:  128.10

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The indebtedness of $1570.00  for  dental  treatment  he  received  at
government expense on 14 and 21 August 1996, 9  October  1996,  and  9
December 1996 be either waived or remitted.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While serving as a military technician with the Illinois Air  National
Guard (ILANG) he was ordered to on-station active duty for the  period
4 April 1996 through 19 August  1996.   He  received  an  active  duty
dental examination where  it  was  discovered  he  was  not  worldwide
qualified for duty due to  extensive  dental  problems.   The  dentist
performing the examination recommended he begin treatment immediately.
 He contends as there was no military treatment facility with which to
receive dental care in the local area, he was referred to  a  civilian
dental provider.  In June 1996, he  requested  pre-approval  from  the
approving authority (HQ 375th Medical Group, Scott AFB,  IL),  due  to
the exorbitant cost of his treatment.  He received  two  pre-approvals
for specific dental treatment from the approval authority.

His active duty orders were amended on 2 August  1996  shortening  his
original tour from 19  August  1996  to  31  July  1996  whereupon  he
returned to his military technician status.  He contends he asked  the
NCOIC of the unit clinic (SG) about  his  impending  dental  treatment
since his change in status and was told since his treatment  had  been
pre-approved he should keep his appointments and submit the  bills  to
the Air Force for payment.  He contends  the  clinic  NCOIC  told  him
should the Air Force not pay the bills for whatever  reason  that  the
applicant would be responsible for paying them out of his own  pocket.
He began the dental treatment on 14 August 1996 under  the  assumption
that Air Force medical policy was to finish any treatment started.  He
submitted  the  bill  for  the  first  appointment  to  the  approving
authority for payment and it was  paid.   He  attended  several  other
appointments and submitted another pre-approval request  on  9 October
1996 that the approving authority approved.   He  continued  treatment
and after all repairs had been completed he submitted the final  bills
to the approval authority and they were paid.  He continued his career
and eventually retired from the ILANG in January 2001.  He contends he
received a letter from the ILANG Staff Judge Advocate  (SJA)  in  July
2001 informing him he received the dental treatment while  not  in  an
active status and was therefore responsible for  reimbursing  the  Air
Force for the treatment costs.  He was billed for $1,570.00.  He wrote
to the unit JAG, the commander of the 375th  Medical  Group  (approval
authority), the HQ Air National Guard Air Surgeon (ANG/SG), and to his
Congressman.  However he received a letter from  his  unit  JAG  dated
2 March 2002 wherein he was told he was responsible for  the  debt  as
the dental care was accomplished while he was  in  a  non-active  duty
status.  On  23  May  2003,  his  unit  sent  him  a  Notification  of
Indebtedness Against his Pay Account letter.  The letter included five
options for him to consider, otherwise he was expected to remit a lump
sum payment of $1,570 no later than 23 June  2003.   He  responded  by
selecting options B and C wherein he would appeal the validity of  the
debt and request remission or waiver of erroneous payment.  On 23 June
2003, he submitted a DD Form 2789,  Waiver/Remission  of  Indebtedness
Application, to the Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) that was
denied.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement and copies of his active duty orders with the amendment, his
military dental exam, pre-authorization letters, dental bills, several
pertinent letters and his waiver request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a retired member of the ILANG was employed by the ILANG
medical clinic as a temporary federal technician on  25 October  1995.
He voluntarily accepted a temporary active duty tour with the  clinic,
which he requested curtailment of when he accepted employment with the
clinic as a full time military technician until  11  January  2001  at
which time he resigned his position with the unit and retired from the
ILANG.

During his period of active duty, from 4 April 1996 through  19 August
1996 he served as a medical services specialist in the unit’s  clinic.
He was examined on 21 May 1996 whereupon he was approved for extensive
dental care to be provided by a local dentist.  He  received  approval
for local dental care on 21 June 1996 totaling $700 and on  9  October
1996 totaling $910.  However, his active duty tour was  curtailed  and
expired on 31 July 1996.  He began his series of extensive dental care
in August 1996, after his orders had expired, and continued to receive
dental care until care was completed in December 1996.  He retired  in
2001 and was notified by the ILANG SJA by letter on 8 July 2001 of the
results of an audit that found he owed $1,570 for dental treatment  he
received that he was not entitled to.  The audit revealed he  received
the treatment while not in an active duty status.  Applicant responded
to the letter on 26 November 2001.  On 2 March 2002, the SJA wrote the
applicant  and  noted  the  appropriate  officials  had  reviewed  his
November 2001 response to the SJA and that the  government’s  position
had not changed.  He was notified that he needed to make  arrangements
to repay the $1,570  or  the  debt  would  be  turned  over  to  other
government agencies that could result in adverse  action  being  taken
against him.  On 8 January 2002, the Wing Commander ordered the IG  to
investigate the circumstances surrounding charges to the Air Force for
dental services provided to the applicant.  The IG found the  21  June
1996 approval for dental services for $700 was authorized  but  the  9
October 1996 authorization took place after his active duty  tour  had
expired and was considered invalid by  regulation.   However,  the  IG
found that since his treatment began after  his  orders  had  expired,
regulations  prohibited  his  receiving  the  treatment.    The   Wing
Commander asked the IG whether or  not  the  applicant  had  committed
fraud against the Air Force.  The IG noted  each  instance  of  dental
care occurred after his orders had expired and noted the  elements  of
fraud as contained in the Uniform Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ),
Article 132b as being the applicant must make a  certain  claim,  that
the claim has to be false or fraudulent in  certain  particulars,  and
the applicant knew the claim was false or fraudulent.   The  IG  noted
his  position  as  the  medical  liaison  to   Scott   AFB   and   his
responsibility to administer the program for active duty Reservists to
receive civilian medical and dental care and found  that  the  actions
taken by the applicant appeared to fall within the elements  of  fraud
as described.   The  IG  noted  that  the  NCOIC  of  the  clinic  was
questioned and was found to be under the impression that  because  the
care had been pre-existing that the care was appropriate.   The  NCOIC
stated he would never have signed  the  request  for  care  unless  he
believed it appropriate to do so.  The  IG  summarized  the  applicant
applied for and received civilian dental care  to  which  he  was  not
entitled  totaling  $1,570.   The  IG  recommended  using   collection
practices such as  wage  garnishment  or  tax  refund  garnishment  to
collect  the  outstanding  debt.   On  23  May  2003,  he  received  a
Notification of Indebtedness from the unit comptroller wherein he  was
asked to pay a lump sum payment of $1,570.00 by 23 June 2003 or appeal
the validity of the debt, request remission  or  cancellation  of  the
debt, request a waiver of the debt, apply to the AFBCMR for relief, or
propose a different payment schedule with which  to  repay  the  debt.
Applicant applied to DFAS on 23 June 2003 via a DD Form 2789 that  was
denied.

On 20 January 2001, he retired  from  the  ILANG  after  20  years,  5
months, and 14 days of satisfactory service.  He was  serving  in  the
grade of technical sergeant at the  time  of  his  retirement  and  is
currently awaiting Reserve Retired pay at age 60.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPFOC recommends denial.   DPFOC  contends  the  applicant,  as  a
member of a medical facility that processed active  duty  dental  care
requests would have to have known that the Air  Force  only  paid  for
dental care for Reservists when  on  active  duty.   DPFOC  notes  his
active duty orders were for less than 6-month duration.   DPFOC  notes
he did not report to the Scott AFB dental clinic for his initial  exam
until 21 May 1996 and, due to a busy schedule did not report  for  his
first oral exam with his dentist until 21 August 1996, well after  his
active duty orders had expired.  The general consensus  of  the  ILANG
and the National Guard Bureau (NGB)  is  that  the  Scott  AFB  Dental
clinic was not  aware  the  applicant’s  active  duty  tour  had  been
curtailed and therefore continued to pay for treatment as if  he  were
still  on  active  duty.   DPFOC  contends  it  was  the   applicant’s
responsibility to notify the Scott AFB clinic of his employment status
and that acceptance of medical treatment after  he  was  removed  from
active duty and while a full time military technician  with  the  very
facility that monitored this program for the ILANG is questionable  at
best.

DPFOC’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant contends he had no knowledge of Air Force or ANG regulations
that prevented him from obtaining the dental care in question.  He now
feels he relied to his detriment on information provided to him by the
Air Force and ANG medical system that  was  obviously  incorrect.   He
contends should he have to repay the money in question it would levy a
substantial financial hardship on his family.

He contends he deeply resents the implication asserted by both the  IG
and the ANG that he  was  somehow  perpetrating  a  fraudulent  action
against the government by filing for  payment  for  dental  care.   He
states he did receive the dental care in question  but  the  care  was
directly related to  his  eligibility  for  military  deployment.   He
contends he did not forge any  documents  or  signatures  nor  did  he
knowingly make any false  statements  in  pursuit  of  his  claim  for
payment but also notes the care in  question  was  authorized  by  the
agencies responsible for determining his eligibility to begin with.

He believes the IG’s report clearly demonstrates the assumption  that,
because he was assigned to a medical squadron, he had to have known he
was not entitled to dental care.  He notes the IG presents no evidence
to back up their claim and he contends he simply was not aware of  his
non-entitlement at the time.  He contends he had just begun employment
as a medical technician in the medical squadron and  had  no  previous
medical training or  experience  nor  had  he  attended  any  military
technical training schools.  He contends he did not receive any on-the-
job  training  related  to  the  eligibility  of   ANG   members   for
health/dental benefits and the implication he should have been held to
a higher standard  than  other  ANG  members  because  of  an  implied
knowledge of ANG health/dental-related benefits is  without  basis  in
fact.  He questions why he should be held to an unreasonable  standard
when it is apparent the unit was negligent in its member  training  to
the point the unit’s senior medical technician thought he was entitled
to the dental care.  Further, he contends a result  of  his  situation
has been that the unit has belatedly appointed a more  senior  medical
technician to approve all requests for dental care in the future.   He
respectfully requests he be  relieved  of  the  obligation  to  re-pay
$1,570.00 in dental benefits.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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 error or injustice.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant's submission, we  are  not  persuaded
that his uncorroborated assertions of no knowledge of how the  medical
system worked or his apparent ignorance regarding when he was eligible
for dental care and when he was not, in and  by  itself,  sufficiently
persuasive to warrant the relief requested.   Further,  the  applicant
admits to being advised by the ILANG  Clinic  NCOIC,  should  the  Air
Force not pay his dental  bills  for  whatever  reason,  he  would  be
responsible for paying the bills out of his own pocket.  Therefore, we
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the  Air  National  Guard
office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed  as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed  to  sustain
his burden of having suffered  either  an  error  or  injustice.   The
bottom line is that he received remuneration for dental  care  he  was
not entitled to.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence  to
the contrary, we find no compelling basis to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2005-01267  in  Executive  Session  on  18  January  2006,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
      Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Apr 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 15 Nov 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Nov 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Dec 05, w/atchs.



                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair