IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  19 February 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080014356 


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 for an alleged overpayment of Special Duty Assignment Pay (SDAP) in the amount of $3,122.50.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was allegedly overpaid SDAP while attending Czech language training.  He also states that in accordance with the governing Army regulation, enlisted Soldiers are eligible to receive SDAP as an exception when they are attending a course of instruction directly related to or necessary for continued qualification in the special duty assignment.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his request:  Army Human Resources Command (HRC) Memorandum, dated 26 June 2008; Sworn Statement (DA Form 2823), dated 29 October 2007; Application for Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness (DA Form 3508-R), Page 1; and Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (DODFMR) and 
Army Regulation 614-200 Extracts.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s military record shows he initially enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) and entered active duty on 6 August 1991.  As of the date of his application to the Board, he was still serving on active duty in the rank of sergeant first class (SFC).


2.  The applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains a Noncommissioned Officer’s Evaluation Report (NCOER) which rated him as a Operations NCO of the United States Defense Attaché Office (USDAO) Moscow during the period June 2005 to June 2006, while assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Washington, D.C. 

3.  The applicant's OMPF contains a Service School Academic Evaluation Report (AER) which shows he successfully completed Joint Military Attaché School (JMAS) training during the period 22 August 2006 to 5 June 2007.  Item 14 (Comments) indicates that the applicant was assigned to JMAS, DIA in preparation for his assignment as the Operations NCO to the Czech Republic.

4.  The OMPF includes a NCOER which rated the applicant as an Operations NCO of the United States Defense Attaché Office (USDAO) Prague during the period 1 June 2006 to 30 November 2007, while assigned to the DIA, Washington, D.C.

5.  On 24 October 2007, the Debt Management Section, Financial Management Division, Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) notified the applicant that he was indebted to the government for overpayment of SDAP during the period 18 August 2006 to 23 October 2007, in the amount of $3,122.50.  The applicant received this notification and indicated he did not acknowledge the validity of the debt and would submit an application for remission or cancellation of the debt.

6.  The applicant submitted a DA Form 3508-R requesting remission or cancellation of his debt.  In a sworn statement, dated 29 October 2007, he stated, in part, that he was notified by finance that his SDAP should have stopped when he completed a permanent change of station (PCS) move from USDAO at the Embassy in Moscow on 18 August 2006, to attend language training for a follow assignment to the USDAO in Prague, Czech Republic.  He further stated that because his PCS was to a duty related school and he was still a part of the Defense Attaché Service (DAS), his SDAP was never questioned.

7.  The applicant’s OMPF contains no documents indicating he was authorized to continue to receive SDA pay while attending school, or that shows he was assigned to an SDA authorized position during the period between 18 August 2006 and 23 October 2007, while he was on a permanent change of station move and attending school. 

8.  On 26 June 2008, the HRC Chief, Operations Management Division notified the applicant that his request for remission or cancellation of indebtedness was disapproved.

9.  Army Regulation 614-200, Paragraph 3-20 provides guidance on SDAP and it states, in pertinent part, that SDA pay is a monetary incentive paid to enlisted Soldiers who qualify for and serve in designated special duty (SD) assignments that have extremely demanding duties requiring extraordinary effort for satisfactory performance or an unusual degree of responsibility.  Receipt of SDAP depends on service in the SD assignment after meeting the applicable criteria.  Paragraph 3-22e provides the eligibility criteria for SDAP and states, in pertinent part, that enlisted Soldiers are eligible to receive SDAP when they are properly assigned and performing duties of the designated SD assignment. However, as an exception, Soldiers will continue to receive SDAP when they are no longer serving in SD assignments because they are attending a course of instruction directly related to or necessary for continued qualification in the 
SD assignment.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s claim that his record should be corrected to show the debt he incurred as a result of overpayment of SDAP was cancelled because he was assigned to a duty related training course of instruction for a follow on special duty assignment has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  By regulation, as an exception, Soldiers will continue to receive SDAP when they are no longer serving in SD assignments because they are attending a course of instruction directly related to or necessary for continued qualification in the SD assignment.  The evidence of record confirms the JMAS training completed by the applicant from 22 August 2006 to 5 June 2007 was completed while he was enroute to a new assignment in the Czech, Republic, and there is no indication that it was related to his assignment in Moscow, for which he had been receiving the SDA pay in question.  

3.  Lacking any evidence to confirm that the applicant was assigned to an authorized SD assignment position during the period in question, there is no basis upon which to question the validity of the HRC decision to deny his request for cancellation or remission of his debt for overpayment of SDAP in the amount of $3,122.50. 

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___x____  ___x____  ___x____  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.




      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20080014356



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080014356



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1