Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608504C070209
Original file (9608504C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Approved
2.  The applicant requests remission of $1,380.15 in indebtedness incurred as the result of overpayment of BAQ (bachelor allowance for quarters) at the ‘with dependents’ (w/dep) rate.  He states that he has two dependent sons, but is unmarried.  When he first joined the Army on 2 February 1995, he began receiving BAQ w/dep when he should have received the differential between BAQ w/dep and BAQ.  This error was continued through five reassignments and it was not until more than 1 year later, on 3 April 1996, that he was notified of a problem.

3.  The applicant was born on 26 April 1974 and enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 2 February 1995.  At enlistment, he indicated that he was single, but the father of one child [his second child was born after his enlistment]. Following his initial in-processing, he was erroneously paid full BAQ w/dep when he was only entitled to the differential between that rate and the lower BAQ rate.

4.  When the error was discovered, the applicant provided his servicing Finance Office with information concerning his support payments to his first child’s mother.   Based upon this information, the Finance Office determined that, in addition to receiving excessive BAQ payments, the applicant was providing less than the full amount of BAQ received in the support of his first child.  Finance deducted the actual amount of support provided from the total amount of BAQ w/dep paid to the applicant, then held him liable for the remainder, established as $1,380.15 (with interest).  This was in accordance with the Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (DoDFMR), Volume 7a, Chapter 50.

5.  In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Indianapolis Center (DFAS).  It contains no information, advice or recommendation which would constitute a basis for granting the relief requested.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant, through no fault of his own, was erroneously given an amount of BAQ greater than that which he was entitled to receive.  He subsequently was transferred to new duty assignments on five different occasions; each new assignment requiring that his records be checked for correctness.  The error was not discovered until his overpayment reached $2,980.15.

2.  The DFAS forgave a portion of the applicant’s debt equal to the amount of actual support which he provided to his child; however, they demanded repayment of the remainder of the overpayment in accordance with applicable DoDFMR’s.
3.  Although properly applied, the DoDFMR ignores the fact that the applicant was not responsible for the overpayment of BAQ.  He was a young soldier, new to the Army and unaware that he was being overpaid.  He discharged his support obligation to his first dependent child in a reasonable fashion [$365.00 per month] and later increased that amount by $200.00 per month when he had a second child with a female soldier.

4.  The Board believes that the applicant should not be made to suffer a debt because of an error by Finance Specialists during his in-processing into the Army.  Therefore, the applicant’s record should be corrected as indicated below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by remitting the $1,380.15 debt of the individual concerned and refunding to him any moneys already collected to satisfy that debt.

BOARD VOTE:  

                                GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                                GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                                DENY APPLICATION




		                                             
		        CHAIRPERSON

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607246C070209

    Original file (9607246C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    She obtained joint legal custody and the Army paid her BAQ at the with dependent rate from the date of her enlistment. At Fort Sam Houston, finance personnel informed her that she was entitled to BAQ at the with dependent rate provided she could prove sole, or joint, custody of her child. Army finance personnel made a mistake in paying the applicant BAQ with dependents; they should have paid her the “with dependent” differential, not the entire amount.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076096C070215

    Original file (2002076096C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In support of his application, he submits copies of his: DA Form 3508-R (Application for Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness) with supporting documents; a memorandum from Chief, Special Actions Branch, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM); a notice of indebtedness from the installation finance office with supporting documents; an e-mail notification; and a copy of his May 2002 leave and earnings statement (LES). The letter also informed the applicant that $2,348.60 of the debt...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9609791C070209

    Original file (9609791C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This resulted in his receiving BAQ and VHA payments to which he was not entitled for a period of approximately 2 1/2 years. Finance Office personnel computed the amount of overpayment of BAQ and VHA at $11,659.42. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded: 1.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008485

    Original file (20140008485.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    c. Even after receiving this incorrect information, he still submitted a form to stop receiving BAH, yet it continued. The conclusion of DFAS was he should be responsible to pay back the BAH payments paid to him; however, they ignore the fact he turned in documents properly to include his divorce decree and BAH certifications and worked with unit leaders and the finance office to ensure he was paid correctly. c. The documents he previously submitted establish he was following Army guidance...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03756

    Original file (BC-2003-03756.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    After the birth of her second child, she and her fiancée went to the Finance office to update the information on her second child. She also could not expect to receive BAH with dependent spouse BAH when she had no housing costs. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, the Board majority agrees with the Air Force office of primary responsibility that the applicant reasonably could not expect to receive BAH at the with- dependent rate...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007086

    Original file (20140007086.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Her DD Form 1966/1 (Record of Military Processing – Armed Forces of the United States) shows that at the time of her enlistment she had two dependents, a son and husband. The Summary Record and Hearing Decision states: * Based on the facts surrounding the case, the appropriate collection actions and fee accruals were made in accordance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 * Collection of the debt by AWG will ensure the DOD is reimbursed for the overpayment of VHA that the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003538

    Original file (20140003538.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Even though they were married, her spouse continued to receive basic allowance for housing differential (BAH-Diff) based on court-ordered child support and she was told by her unit S-1 that she was entitled to receive BAH with dependents. She provides: * Self-authored statement * Final Decree of Divorce * Spouse's Judgment Summary, dated 15 May 2003 * Applicant's and spouse's Master Military Pay Account (MMPA) * Memoranda, Subject: Outstanding Debt for Overpayment of BAH, dated 4 November...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086544C070212

    Original file (2003086544C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In November 2000, BAH-I was repaid to the applicant for the period 2 August to 30 November 2000, totaling $4,385.94, causing the applicant to receive a large mid-month and end-of-month (EOM) for November payment totaling $8,292.43 ($5,591.47 + $2,174.54). He was paid for BAH-II from July 21 through 30 November 2000, totaling $3,135.60, leaving him with a debt of $3,831.61 (-$2,174.54 - $4,792 +$3,135.60). The evidence shows that his account should have been closed out on 30 November 2000...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9505951C070209

    Original file (9505951C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Approved

    He further states that he then explained that he was getting married to another service member who was residing in government quarters and was informed that he would be entitled to save pay under those circumstances and that no further action would be required on his part. Records obtained from the local DFAS office by a staff member of the Board indicate that the applicant is currently indebted in the amount of $1,887.38 and that his pay was being garnished for child support in the amount...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120014144

    Original file (20120014144.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Finance instructed me to submit the request and if I was not entitled to receive FSA, Finance would not authorize funding. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for full remission or cancellation of a debt in the amount of $28,554.80. The available records show the applicant received erroneous payments of FSA, COLA, HDP, and BAH.