RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         04 NOVEMBER 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004101211


      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             |
|     |Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Melvin Meyer                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. James Anderholm               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jonathon Rost                 |     |Member               |

      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.  In effect, the applicant requests remission of his indebtedness to the
Army and reimbursement to him of the money he has already paid to satisfy
the debt.

2.  The applicant states that he was provided the incorrect form in
November 2000 when he applied for remission of his debt and consequently,
the money was taken from his pay.  His request was never properly completed
because he relied on erroneous information from his servicing finance
office.  He and his family are still suffering.  It has been over three
years and the issue of his indebtedness has yet to be resolved.

3.  The applicant provides the documents depicted herein.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant served in the Navy on active duty for over four years
from July 1979 to March 1984, serving in the Naval Reserve thereafter.  In
December 1994 he enlisted in the Army National Guard of Puerto Rico for six
years, and on         8 July 1997 enlisted in the Regular Army for four
years.  On 24 October 2000 he reenlisted in the Army for six years.

2.  On 23 October 2000 the applicant, then a dental technician with the
    618th Medical Company in Korea, requested to the Commander, 176th
Finance Battalion, that his debt be remitted because he was unable to pay
the amount owed.  In his request he recounted his efforts to correct the
amount of the housing allowance that he was receiving.

3.  The applicant was supported in his request by his commanding officer,
who stated that the error in his housing allowance was not his fault, but
appeared to be a clerical error which showed his overseas housing allowance
(OHA) as $49,200, instead of the correct amount of $491.88 a month.

4.  On 7 November 2000 the applicant submitted a request for
waiver/remission of indebtedness.  The request shows that he was paid
$10,916.85 for OHA from  November 1999 to 30 September 2000, an overpayment
of $5731.20.

5.  On 28 November 2000 the 176th Finance Battalion recommended to the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) at Denver that the applicant
be responsible to pay only 25 percent of the debt ($1432.80) owed, thereby
granting a partial remission for the remaining 75 percent of the debt.  The
176th stated, however, that the applicant went to the wrong finance
battalion to inquire about his OHA.  Had he gone to the 176th, they would
have caught the mistake.  The 176th stated that the applicant received at
least $900 a month for OHA for one year intended for rent and utilities for
his family in Puerto Rico; however, his rent was only $492.00 a month.  The
176th did state that even if he did not know he was being overpaid, he
still received the money erroneously.  The 176th stated that there was no
fraud invoked, but that the overpayment was due to a clerical mistake.  The
176th also stated that there was no reason to believe that the applicant
should have known that he was getting overpaid OHA because the period [of
the OHA] was the first time since he came on active duty in 1997 that he
received OHA for Puerto Rico.

6.  On 24 January 2001 the applicant, then stationed at Fort Leonard Wood,
Missouri, submitted a DA Form 3508-R (Application for Remission or
Cancellation of Indebtedness).  In this application, the applicant stated
that he had submitted a previous package that was lost or never sent from
Korea to the finance office in Virginia.  This 24 January 2001 application,
however, appears to have been incomplete.

7.  With his application, the applicant submits copies of his W-2 forms for
1999 and 2000, and copies of his leave and earnings statements (LES) from
October 1999 through December 2000.  These LES show the amount of OHA he
received, with the October 2000 LES showing an indebtedness of $5731.20.
He also submits a history of his pay account as of 18 December 2000.

8.  The applicant first applied to this Board for relief on 20 June 2003.
The Board obtained an advisory opinion from the Total Army Personnel
Command (PERSCOM).  That command indicated that PERSCOM had returned the
applicant's request for remission or cancellation of indebtedness in July
2001 because it was incomplete and stated that the application provided to
them with the request for an advisory opinion was also incomplete.  The
Board provided that information to the applicant, and advised him that he
had not yet exhausted his administrative remedies.

9.  On 1 October 2003 the applicant again submitted an Application for
Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness (DA Form 3508-R), along with a
sworn statement of the circumstances of his case, and a pay adjustment
authorization prepared by the Defense Military Pay Office at Fort Leonard
Wood. His DA Form 3508-R shows that there was no amount [debt] being
collected monthly, no amount uncollected [on the] date of the commander's
signature       [1 October 2002] and no amount uncollected this date [15
October 2003, the date of certification by the FAO (Finance and Accounting
Officer)].  In response, the Human Resources Command advised the Defense
Military Pay Office that because the indebtedness was collected prior to
the commander's signature on the DA Form 3508-R, it [the applicant's
request] could not be considered for remission or cancellation because of
the provisions contained in the Army Regulation 600-4.  The applicant was
advised to apply to this Board for relief.

10.  The applicant's March 2003 LES contains the remarks, "STOP
INDEBTEDNESS."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant incurred a debt to the government through no fault of his
own, apparently unaware that he was receiving too much money for OHA, as
indicated by the 176th Finance Battalion in November 2000.  When he found
out that he was indebted to the government for over $5000.00, and that he
would have to repay this amount, he requested remission or cancellation of
the debt.  His requests, over the past three years, have been unsuccessful,
either because of processing errors, or incorrect or incomplete
applications.

2.  The applicant's request for remission or cancellation of his
indebtedness should have been more timely resolved.  In this respect, it
seems that he was not properly served.

3.  It appears, however, that his debt to the government has been
satisfied.  His March 2003 LES indicates that his indebtedness was stopped,
and his 1 October 2003 application for remission or cancellation of
indebtedness indicates that he owed no money on this debt.

4.  Nevertheless, and despite the fact that his requests were not resolved
as promptly as they should have been, the applicant received the benefit of
the overpayment, and evidently has repaid the government.  The government
paid him money that he was not due.  He paid it back.  There is no
injustice in this matter.

5.  Therefore, the applicant's request for remission of indebtedness or to
reimburse him money that he paid to satisfy the debt is not granted.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___MM__  ___JA___  ___JR  __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.





                                  ______Melvin Meyer______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004101211                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041104                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |128.10                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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