RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          13 JULY 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003097611


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Samuel Crumpler               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Stanley Kelley                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Mark Manning                  |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests restoration of $546.84, which was taken from her
pay in payment of a debt for shipment of excess household goods.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that following basic training in June
2001 her spouse arranged transportation of their household goods to
Monterey, California. She states that her spouse was informed by the
packing agent that they had approximately 8000 pounds of household goods
and as such, her spouse disposed of many things that “should have put our
weight at abut 5000” pounds.  However, when the truck arrived in Monterey
they were informed that they had over 10000 pounds.

3.  She states that in November 2001 she went to the transportation office
to find out what she needed to do about the excess weight and was told, in
effect, not to worry about it.

4.  In May 2003 her pay was reduced by $273.42 in payment toward a debt of
$3281.05, which she discovered, after several inquiries, was the debt
incurred for her excess weight shipment.  She states that she was told that
a letter was forwarded to her unit commander; however, she had never
received the letter.

5.  The applicant states that she was never given an opportunity to contest
the debt but was given a Department of the Army Form 3508-5 (Application
for Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness), which she filled out right
away and submitted after the form was reviewed and verified by her unit
commander.

6.  Ultimately, she states, she discovered that the form required the
signature of another member of her chain of command and by the time that
form was signed, additional funds had been taken from her monthly pay.

7.  In October 2003 she was notified that $2734.21 of her $3281.05 debt was
remitted.  However, she was informed that the $546.84 of the debt
“collected prior to the commander’s signature on the application” could not
be considered for remission based on the provisions of Army Regulation 600-
4, paragraph
1-11b.  She was advised to contact this Board if she felt an injustice had
occurred surrounding the collected portion of the debt.




8.  The applicant submitted a copy of the 2003 excess weight determination,
a copy of the 2003 debt notification letter, a copy of her application for
remission of her indebtedness, a 16 May 2003 statement from her unit
commander in support of her request, an undated statement from the
applicant’s battalion commander, copies of her leave and earning
statements, and a copy of the remission/cancellation of indebtedness letter
from the Chief, Special Actions Branch, United States Army Human Resources
Command – Alexandria.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant entered
active duty on 15 June 2001, in pay grade E-3, for a period of 5 years.

2.  A document from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service in
Indianapolis, dated 6 March 2003, nearly 2 years after the applicant
enlisted in the Army, authorized the collection of $3281.05 from the
applicant for excess household goods weighing more than 4000 pounds over
her authorized 5000 pounds.

3.  A 25 March 2003 memorandum from the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service, Defense Military Pay Office, at Monterey, California, to the
Commander, Company F, 229th Military Intelligence Battalion, Defense
Language Institute Foreign Language Center, notified the commander that the
applicant, a member “of your Command” was indebted to the United States
Government in the amount of $3281.05 “due to overpayment in government bill
of lading (GBLD).”  The memorandum went on to inform the commander that the
applicant should be counseled and that she could apply for remission of the
debt in accordance with Army Regulation 600-4.  The suspense date for
action was not later than 25 April 2003.

4.  Although the applicant’s May 2003 leave and earning statement was not
included with documents provided to the Board by the applicant, based on
her June 2003 leave and earning statement, it is apparent that $273.42 was
deducted from her May pay account in payment toward her debt.

5.  On 14 May 2003 the applicant submitted an application for
remission/cancellation of her debt.  On 16 May 2003 her unit commander
supported the application and authored a memorandum addressed thru the




battalion and garrison commanders to the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service (DFAS), Presidio of Monterey, noting that the applicant was not
aware at any time that she was over the weight allowance, that it was the
applicant’s first Army move, and that she believed the error resulted from
the applicant’s lack of experience and that she never intended to deceive
the military.  The commander did not comment on when the applicant first
became aware of her debt to the government and did not indicate when or if
the unit ever received the March 2003 debt letter from DFAS.

6.  The applicant’s battalion commander initialed and lined through his
address line on the unit commander’s memorandum on 23 July 2003, more than
2 months after the applicant’s unit commander had acted on the applicant’s
request for remission/cancellation of her debt.  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 discovered that $273.42 had been deducted from her May pay account.
 He also noted that on 30 June 2003 another $273.42 had been deducted from
her pay account toward reduction of her debt.

7.  On 23 July 2003 the chief of the Office of Military Pay Operations at
Presidio of Monterey signed the applicant’s request for remission of her
debt.  That official noted that $546.84 had been collected from the
applicant prior to the “as of
22 Jul 03” date when the debt collection was suspended.

8.  A 6 October 2003 memorandum from the United States Army Human Resources
Command-Alexandria, Special Actions Branch, notified the applicant that her
request for remission/cancellation of her debt had been received on
2 October 2003 and that her debt, exceeding the $546.84 amount already
collected, had been approved.  The document informed the applicant that the
$546.84 which had been collected “prior to the commander’s signature on the
application” could not be considered for remission or cancellation under
the provisions of Army Regulation 600-4, paragraph 1-11b.

9.  Army Regulation 600-4, paragraph 1-11b states that the Commander,
PERSCOM (United States Total Army Personnel Command), now known as the
United States Army Human Resources Command-Alexandria, will not consider a
request for remission of cancellation of a debt which “was repaid or
collected before the immediate commander signed the DA Form 3508-R
(Application for Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness).”
10.  Army Regulation 600-4 also states that a Soldier may apply to this
Board if circumstances prevented consideration of all or portion of the
debt for remission or cancellation of indebtedness and specifically sites,
as an example, a Soldier who is indebted for travel or transportation
allowances and the debt was collect before the application was signed by
the commander.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence clearly indicates that the applicant applied for
remission/cancellation of her debt as soon as she was aware that she had
incurred a debt for her household good weight allowance.  It is reasonable
to conclude that had she been aware of the debt, prior to the first debt
payment being deducted from her pay account, she would have submitted her
request in a more timely manner, thereby avoiding any funds from being
deducted and the likelihood that the entire debt would have been
remitted/cancelled.

2.  The evidence suggests that the applicant, a brand new Soldier, shipped
her household goods utilizing the best information available to her at the
time.  The fact that it took nearly 2 years after she shipped her household
goods for the military to determine and then initiate a debt collection,
further supports a conclusion that the applicant logically believed that
she was not going to be held accountable for the excess weight.  The delay
in initiating the debt and the lengthy delay in processing her request for
remission/cancellation of the debt should not be held against the
applicant.  As indicated in the applicant’s unit commander’s memorandum,
there is no evidence that the applicant intended to deceive the military by
shipping household goods in excess of her authorized poundage.

3.  Additionally, it is noted that Army Regulation 600-4 precludes the
remission or cancellation of a debt by officials at the United States Army
Human Resources Command-Alexandria which was collected “before the
immediate commander signed the DA Form 3508-R.”  The applicant’s immediate
commander, her unit commander, signed the form on 16 May 2003, just 2 days
after the applicant initiated her application.  As such, at the very least,
the applicant should only have been held responsible for the initial debt
collection of $273.42.  However, in view of the fact that there is no
evidence of deception on the part of the applicant, and the likelihood that
had she been notified of her debt in a more timely manner that the entire
debt would have been remitted or cancelled, it would be appropriate, and in
the interest of justice and equity, to refund that portion of the debt
which was collected ($546.84) prior to the approval of her request.

BOARD VOTE:

___SC __  __SK ___  ___MM __  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all
Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by
refunding to the applicant the amount of $546.84 which was collected from
her as payment toward her excess household good debt.




            ___ Samuel Crumpler_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003097611                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040713                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |128.10                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]