RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00255
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be provided a waiver for his indebtedness to the Air Force as
a result of being paid after he separated from active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was unaware that he was being paid by the Air Force after he
separated from active duty. He did not receive a Leave and
Earnings Statement (LES) or other mail after he separated from
active duty, because he began working as a civil service employee
for the Air Force Academy in Colorado, and was separated from his
wife and kids. He did not have access to bank statements, bills
or mail that his wife was receiving in Arizona. He took a job
overseas for the next three years and only learned of his
indebtedness to the Air Force when he and his wife applied for a
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) home loan. His financial
situation precludes him from being able to pay the debt to the
Air Force.
In support of the appeal, the applicant provides a personal
statement, and several bank statements.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 May 97, for
a period of four years. On 20 May 01, he was honorably released
from active duty for completion of required active service. He
completed a total of four years of active service.
It appears the applicant was recalled to active duty and was
released after his deployment on 30 Nov 02. He continued to
receive bi-monthly payments of basic pay and allowances until
31 May 03, followed by a lump sum leave (LSL) entitlement in Oct
03. He was only entitled to $1,209.06, upon his separation on
30 Nov 02. He received payments issued beyond 30 Nov 02, that
totaled $19,339.13, and created a debt of $18,130.07.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
DFAS-IN recommends denial. DFAS/IN states the applicant
separated from the Air Force on 20 Nov 02 after his deployment.
Payments for basic pay and allowances were issued on a bi-monthly
basis until 31 May 03, followed by a LSL entitlement in Oct 03.
DFAS-IN states that as of May 01, all LESs for pay and allowances
are available via internet access through the My Pay System.
This system maintains LESs for the current month and 11 prior
months. When the applicant was released from deployment at the
end of Nov 02, a final payment for LSL should have been expected
and the LES informing him of the payment. Non-receipt of a LES
is not an acceptable response. Furthermore, the applicant did
file a waiver request for this overpayment and his waiver request
was denied.
The complete DFAS/IN evaluation, with attachments, is at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the DFAS evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
29 Jan 10, for review and comment within 30 days. 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After a
thorough review of his submission and the available evidence of
record, we are not persuaded the requested relief should be
granted. We took notice of the complete submission in judging
the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service and
adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or an injustice.
In view of the above and in the absence of persuasive evidence to
the contrary, we find no 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 Docket Number BC-
2009-00255 in Executive Session on 13 May 10, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jan 09, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, DFAS-IN, undated.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Jan 10.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04043
He inquired again about the debt and this time he was told it was invalid and that the accounting and finance representative would notify the Defense Accounting and Finance Service (DFAS). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 6 January 2003, he applied for a waiver of his indebtedness incurred as a result of overpayment...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03908
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFFF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Since the applicant was married at the time of his retirement, and he elected spouse coverage, SBP monthly premiums should have been deducted beginning the first month following his retirement....
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04045
In support of his application, he submits a personal statement and a copy of his (LES). Applicant has failed to provide copies of his LESs prior to November 2002, reflecting no FSGLI premiums were deducted from his pay. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01073
DPFC explains the law mandated that coverage for spouses (to include military-married-to- military couples (mil-to-mil)) and dependent children automatically go into effect on the date of implementation so long as the member was insured under the SGLI program. She notes the article does not specifically mention mil-to-mil, or that your active duty spouse is considered your dependent for this program, or that if an election is not made payments would automatically be deducted from your pay. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02194
At the time of her separation she had been disqualified from Air Traffic Control duties and had been continued on active duty awaiting waivers and Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) processing. With regard to the presence of medical conditions that were potentially disqualifying for controller duties, the Medical Consultant states the fact that she decided to voluntarily separate under pregnancy provisions rather than remain on active duty and complete the planned evaluations and...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00619
The applicant incurred a debt of $23,177.40 due to the receipt of erroneous payments of BAH and Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA) from 26 Aug 98 through 30 Apr 02. Therefore, he should have questioned his pay when he moved into family quarters overseas and started receiving BAH and OHA. Had the applicant questioned his pay within a reasonable amount of time, he would not have incurred such a large debt.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02590
The applicant submitted excerpts from her November 2001 LES that stated “Family SGLI effective November 2001, reduce or decline spouse’s coverage by 31 December to receive a refund…” The applicant was provided ample time to decline coverage upon the start of the Air Force’s FSGLI advertisement campaign. She stated she was deployed in November 2001, but no orders were provided to support her case. According to DPFC the November 2001 statement clearly states to reduce or decline coverage by...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01413
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01413 INDEX CODE: 128.12 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His debt payment of $2,356.37, withheld from his pay on 21 Aug 09, be returned until his DD Form 2789, Waiver/Remission of Indebtedness Application, can be properly adjudicated. He completed a DD Form 2789 and received a waiver...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02149
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The record should be changed because it was created through an administrative error by the finance office and through no fault of her own. The Air Force Financial Services Center Debts and Remissions Branch directed the collection rate of $350.00 per month for seven months until the member's current expired term of service (ETS) date of 20 Nov 2012. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004856
The applicant provides: * memorandum requesting sponsorship, dated 14 March 2007 * Orders 191-12, dated 9 July 2008 * Carlson Wagonlit travel itinerary/invoice, dated 29 July 2008 * DD Form 1351-2 (Travel Voucher or Subvoucher), dated 11 August 2008 * DA Form 5960, dated 11 August 2008 * DD Form 2367, dated 11 August 2008 * Orders 301-02, dated 27 October 2008 * letter from the Darton College Office of the Registrar, dated 5 October 2010 * Account summary from Midland Mortgage Company, dated...