| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, the remission/cancellation of her debt to the government.
3. The applicant states, in effect, that she was granted Permissive Temporary Duty (PTDY) for the period of 1 December 1999 to 10 December 1999 and transitional leave during the period from 11 December 1999 to 20 December 1999, in connection with her separation from the service. However, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) has now determined that she was not authorized the leave for the period of 11 December to 20 December 1999 and has imposed a debt against her for 10 days of leave in the amount of $676.24. In support of her application she submits a copy of her discharge orders, Request and Authority for Leave (DA Form 31), Statement of Military Leave Account, Pre-Separation Counseling Checklist (DD Form 2648) and the debt notice from the DFAS.
4. The applicant’s military records were not available for review by the Board. However, the documents submitted by the applicant show that on 13 September 1999, while serving in the pay grade of E-3, at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, she underwent pre-separation counseling. However, she was not counseled in regards to PTDY.
5. On 8 November 1999, she submitted a request for 10 days of permissive TDY and 10 days of transitional leave in connection with her separation. Her supervisor recommended approval and the commander (a major) approved her request. The applicant was honorably discharged on 20 December 1999.
6. On 17 September 2001, the DFAS sent the applicant a notice of indebtedness for excess leave taken during the period of 11 December to 20 December 1999. She was charged with 10 days of excessive leave and the DFAS informed her that she was not entitled to Permissive TDY (PTDY) Leave during that period. Her debt to the government at that time was $676.24, at 5% interest.
7. Army Regulation 600-8-10 prescribes the policies, operating tasks, and steps governing military personnel absences. It provides, in pertinent part, that commanders of units, normally commanded by officers in the rank of lieutenant colonel or higher are authorized to approve PTDY Leave for 10 days or less. Soldiers are only authorized to take either PTDY or transition excess leave, but not both. Soldiers are authorized 10 days of PTDY and made be granted an additional 10 days if requested and approved.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Although the Board cannot determine with any degree of certainty exactly what happened in this case, the applicant was clearly approved to take 20 days of PTDY and transition leave prior to separation from the service.
2. While the DFAS has clearly indicated that she was not authorized PTDY for the period in question, the available evidence shows that her commander approved the leave (absence). Accordingly, the Board finds that she relied on her unit to advise her accordingly to determine her entitlements and to her detriment, has incurred a debt that she otherwise would not have incurred if she had been properly advised at the time.
3. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Department had an obligation to inform her of her entitlements at the time, in order for her to properly transition from the service. The Board also believes that had she been informed that she was not entitled to the transition leave, she could have planned her separation accordingly and would not have incurred such a debt. Therefore, given the circumstances and the fact that it took almost 2 years for the error to be discovered, the Board believes that the debt should be cancelled/remitted.
4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by remitting/canceling the debt of the individual concerned that was imposed as a result of her taking 10 days of PTDY that she should not have been authorized.
BOARD VOTE:
___fe ___ __le ____ ___tl ___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
____Fred N. Eichorn______
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001066142 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/03/28 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 293 | 128.0100/REMIT DEBT |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
On 31 July 1996, she was honorably released from active duty, under the provisions - miscellaneous/general reasons), and transferred to the Air Force Reserve. ( voluntary release 36-3208 of AFI The Commander's Programs Branch, AFPC/DPSFC, stated applicant's master military pay account (MMPA) shows 20 days of excess leave since applicant's days of leave exceeded the days accrued as of the date of release from active duty on 31 July 1996. In this regard, the commander's erroneous permissive...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017971
The applicant states: * the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) sent him a statement of debt claiming he owes 3 days of leave, which is not correct as he served all days of his service obligation * he signed out on leave at noon on 3 November 2013 as required of him * his 30 days of PTDY and 87.5 days of accrued leave would have taken him to the last day of February 2014 and his retirement date of 1 March 2014 * his leave dates, date eligible for return from overseas, and final...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002065885C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. However, there is no evidence in the available records to show that he requested PTDY prior to his transition leave. The applicant had accrued 63 days of leave at the date of his release from active duty and used 72 days of leave as stated on his Statement of Military Leave Account, and incurred a debt of 10 days of excess leave.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000710C070206
DFAS explained that, according to their internal instructions, he was authorized to carry over (in excess of 60 days) into the new fiscal year only the amount of days he earned while in the combat zone. His total authorized leave balance at the end of September 2003 should have been 75 days (15 days SLA leave and 60 days regular leave). He took 92 days.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008374C071029
Had the applicant known that he had lost 49 days of leave at the end of the fiscal year, he most likely would have adjusted his terminal leave dates to prevent going into an excess leave balance at his final retirement out-processing. Although the applicant was prevented from taking leave due to operational considerations, he was not authorized special leave accrual since he did not actually deploy. Since the applicant’s debt was incurred while he was still serving on active duty (excess...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063676C070421
The applicant requested reconsideration of his previous request wherein the Board granted relief to show that he was in a terminal (or transition) leave status during the period 22 November 1999 through 29 February 2000; he was retired on 1 March 2000. §5534a requiring that a member of the uniformed services serving on active duty may only accept Federal government employment if in a terminal (transitional) leave status. On an unknown date, the LOC initiated an investigation into the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061531C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Paragraph 1-6 states, in pertinent part, that indebtedness to the U.S. Army may be remitted or canceled under 10 USC 4837 in cases arising from payments made in error to a soldier; payments made in excess of an allowance on behalf of a soldier; debts incurred while serving as an officer of the U.S. Army; debts acknowledged as valid; debts for which an appeal has been...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015351
The applicant's military service records contain a copy of his DD Form 214, with an effective date of 19 March 2000. The applicant and his Counsel contend, in effect, that in the interest of justice the ABCMR should reconsider its original decision and correct the applicant's military service records to show that he completed 20 years net active service The bases of the request is their contention that the applicant forfeited 20 days PTDY in exchange for creditable active duty service, he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005122
The applicant provides copies of her: * notification of and request for remission of debt * Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) proceedings and medical records * sworn statements * transfer orders * separation documents and retirement orders CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The evidence of record shows she acknowledged she received the orders as of 15 October 2010. On 9 August 2012, the applicant was notified of a debt in the amount of $26,526.00 incurred due to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03097611C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. In an undated memorandum, the applicant’s battalion commander reiterated the applicant’s claim that she was told not to worry about her excess household goods and that she had been informed that if she was charged at all she would received notification “well ahead of time.” He confirmed that the applicant submitted an application for remission/cancellation of her debt on the same day she...