IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE: 	        23 June 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080012023 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, reimbursement of a debt paid to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) in the amount of $1,136.33 and restoration of 17.5 days leave.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that her Leave and Earnings Statement (LES) covering the period 1 through 15 July 2005 shows a leave balance of 31.5 days; however, her LES covering the period 16 through 31 July 2005, shows a 0 days leave balance.  She indicates that neither her State finance officer nor DFAS could explain to her why she lost 31.5 days leave between these two pay periods.  She states that she did not have a break in service, did not sell her leave, and indicates it was not the beginning of a new fiscal year.  The applicant also states that in May 2006, DFAS notified her that she incurred a debt during the period 24 through 28 October 2005 because she did not have accrued leave at that time.  The applicant further states that she appealed this debt to DFAS and received a reply indicating that the debt was valid.  She further states that after careful research in March 2008, she discovered she should not have paid the debt due to the fact that if she had not lost the 31.5 days of leave, she would have had sufficient leave to take leave between 24 and 28 October 2005, plus an additional 17.5 days leave.  She states that in March 2008, she appealed to DFAS.  She was advised to apply to this Board because their agency did not have the authority to change her leave balance records.

3.  The applicant provides the indexed list of documents included with her application in support of her request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s military record shows that after having prior active and inactive service, she entered active duty as a member of the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 17 December 2001.  

2.  The applicant’s 15 July 2005 LES shows she had a brought forward leave balance of 30 days, that she earned 1.5 days of leave during the period covered by the LES, and that she had a current leave balance of 31.5 days as of that pay period end date.  Her 1 August 2005 LES shows she had a brought forward leave balance of -2.5 days, that she earned 2.5 days, and that she had a current leave balance of 0 days.  There are no documents on file to explain the difference in the leave balances on these two LESs for consecutive pay periods. 

3.  On 11 October 2005, the applicant initiated a DA Form 31 (Request and Authority for Leave) requesting 5 days of leave, which was approved by the proper authority.  

4.  On 31 October 2005, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD).  The DD Form 214 that was issued at that time shows that she completed a total of 15 years, 5 months, and 29 days of creditable active duty service.  

5.  On 1 November 2005, the applicant entered active duty in an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) status.  

6.  On 9 May 2006, DFAS notified the applicant that she was indebted to the Department of Defense in the amount of $1,115.63.  An account statement included with DFAS's notification shows this debt was incurred for the overpayment received for non-performance of duty for the period 24 through
28 October 2005.

7.  On 10 July 2006, the applicant notified DFAS that she was deploying to Iraq and requested her debt be suspended until her return.  She also informed DFAS that she believed she did not owe the debt. 

8.  On an unspecified date, DFAS informed the applicant that her debt was valid.

9.  On 10 August 2006, DFAS sent the applicant a final notification of her delinquent debt to the government.  She was also informed that the debt amount had increased to $1,136.33 due to interest charges.

10.  On 9 June 2008, in response to an inquiry made by the applicant, DFAS informed the applicant that their agency did not have the authority to change her leave balance records.  Therefore, she was advised to apply to this Board for relief.

11.  During the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Personnel Division, National Guard Bureau (NGB).  The chief recommend partial relief of the applicant’s case to reimburse her the $1,136.33 that was incorrectly collected by DFAS and to credit her with 15 days of lost leave.  The advisory official indicates three errors to possibly explain the reason for the discrepancies in the applicant’s leave account balance during the period in question.  The advisory official first provides that the applicant’s DA Form 702 (LES) shows she had an ending leave balance of 18 days on 1 June 2004, and a beginning leave balance of 32.5 days on 15 June 2004, which apparently incorrectly added 14.5 days to her leave account.  Secondly, as of 15 July 2005, the applicant had an ending leave balance of 31.5 days.  Lastly, the next LES, dated 1 August 2005, shows a beginning leave balance of -2.5 days, which apparently shows 34 days were deducted from her leave account.

12.  The advisory official further indicates that an excerpt of the Defense Joint Military Pay Systems (DJMS-RC) Leave Master report shows that the applicant’s leave taken from 24 through 28 October 2005 was incorrectly charged as ".5" days instead of "5" days as it should have been, resulting in an error of 4.5 days. This official further recommends the DFAS conduct an audit of the applicant’s leave account during the period 1 October 2003 to 1 November 2005.  The NGB official further indicates that the applicant was authorized leave during the period 
24 through 28 October 2005.  The official finally recommends the applicant be reimbursed the $1,136.33 paid to DFAS and restoration of 15 days of leave.

13.  On 13 May 2009, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Claims Branch, DFAS.  This official indicates that the applicant’s Leave Master Record (LMR) shows she had a balance of 31.5 days leave as of 20 July 2005, with a brought forward leave adjusted balance of 14.5 days.  He also indicates that the Claims Branch was not provided with any documents authorizing an adjustment to her leave balance record.  The advisory official further states that the wrong amount of days reflected on the applicant’s LMR resulted in her placement in an excess leave status and her pay account being in debit for $1,136.33.  The official finally recommends approval of the applicant’s request.

14.  The applicant was provided a copy of the NGB and DFAS advisory opinions on 11 and 14 May 2009, respectively, for information and to afford her the 
opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal.  She concurred with the DFAS advisory opinion and provided no comments relating to the NGB advisory opinion.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that the debt she incurred was unjust and that her record should be corrected to show her absence from 24 through 28 October 2005 was authorized leave, and by restoring 17.5 days of accrued leave was carefully considered and found to have merit.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that as of 15 July 2005, the applicant had 31.5 days leave.  It further shows that the next LES shows a leave balance of 0; however, there are no documents on file with the NGB or with DFAS that explain this change in the applicant's leave balance.  As a result of this unexplained change in her leave balance, she incurred a debt, with interest, of $1,136.33 because she was placed in an excess leave status during the period 24 through 28 October 2005.

3.  Absent any documentary evidence supporting the change in the applicant's leave balance between 15 July and 1 August 2005, it is concluded the adjustment to her leave balance from 31.5 days to 0 days, which resulted in the debt, was unjust and inequitable.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant's record by showing the applicant had sufficient accrued leave to take ordinary leave during the period 24 through 28 October 2005, that no debt was incurred by the applicant for non-performance of duty during this period, and to reimburse the applicant any amount of this erroneous debt already collected.  

4.  Further, it would also be appropriate to restore 17.5 days of accrued leave to the applicant's leave balance, as requested by the applicant and supported by the DFAS advisory official.

BOARD VOTE:

___X____  ___X____  __X____  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL 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:

   a.  showing the applicant had sufficient accrued leave to take ordinary leave during the period 24 through 28 October 2005;
   
   b.  showing the subject debt was erroneously incurred;
   
   c.  reimbursing the applicant any amount of the erroneous debt incurred that has already been collected; and
   
   d.  restoring 17.5 days of accrued leave to the applicant's Leave Management Record (leave balance).



      ___________X______________
                 CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080012023



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080012023



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1