BOARD DATE:	  13 March 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130006393 


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 her records be changed to show her request for remission or cancellation of indebtedness in the amount of $9,338.99 was granted in full.

2.  The applicant states:  

	a.  There had been an error in the coding of her pay.  When she got married, on 19 July 2011, finance professionals told her she was not entitled to get paid for her husband because she had at the time a child residing with her in Brussels, Belgium and her husband chose to remain in Florida.

	b.  When she tried to get reimbursed for travel and change her basic allowance for housing (BAH) status for her son, who had been approved for  early return of dependents (ERD), the reimbursement had not, after 4 months, been done.  When she asked her local finance office at U.S. Army Garrison (USAG) Benelux why, a finance clerk told her they were trying to figure out what she was entitled to.

	c.  She told the clerk about a remission packet she had done and how finance had taken close to $5,000 because they said she was overpaid overseas housing allowance (OHA).  A finance clerk, who had transferred, erroneously coded her records to get dual OHA.  

	d.  Upon further research her primary dependent according to regulation became her husband and the codes should have reflected that.  Instead, it looked like Benelux Finance chose to take the easier road and removed her husband's zip code, even though he remained her primary dependent, and just gave her OHA for where she was stationed.  Her local finance clerk said it was a question of cost of living allowance, and it would take a lot to figure out what should be done.

	e.  After over 6 months of trying to fix her pay issues, the problem was presented to Benelux Finance and they told her local finance office they could fix everything back to 13 July 2012, when her son departed country, and that she should write to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for anything before that date.

3.  The applicant provides:

* her marriage certificate
* a memorandum, dated 5 January 2012, from Benelux Finance Office
* her application for remission or cancellation of indebtedness, dated 
17 January 2012
* a memorandum, dated 23 April 2012, from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC)
* a memorandum, dated 30 October 2012, from USAG Benelux
* her Leave and Earnings Statements (LES) from February through December 2011

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  At the time the indebtedness was incurred she was a sergeant first class serving in the Regular Army.  She was serving on an "indefinite" enlistment and she had over 12 years of active service.  She was assigned to the U.S. Delegation to the NATO Military Committee in Brussels, Belgium.  She was serving a "with dependent" tour and she had one command-sponsored dependent, her son.

2.  She returned to Florida on leave and was married to a civilian on 19 July 2011.

3.  A memorandum, dated 5 January 2012, from the Benelux Finance Office notified the applicant she was indebted to the U.S. government in the amount of $9,338.99 for overpayment of variable housing allowance (zip code 33181) (her husband's zip code).

4.  On 17 January 2012, she submitted an application for remission or cancellation of indebtedness.  In her application she stated:
	a.  After getting married on 19 July 2011, she and her spouse decided it would be better for him to remain in Florida because there were no jobs in Brussels.  She returned to Brussels to update her records to include her finance records.  

	b.  The finance office gave her a form to update her BAH/OHA.  At that time she made it clear to her finance office that her husband would not be accompanying her on her tour in Belgium.  She was still instructed to fill out the form.

	c.  From August 2011 to December 2011 she did have an increase in BHA and noticed her husband's zip code had been added to her LES.  Because her finance office instructed her to fill out the forms, she did not question the increase.

	d.  When reviewing her LES for the month of December 2011 she noticed an increase in her pay and she noticed three debt entries that she could not understand.  Her finance office told her she had been given dual OHA and the debt was to pay this money back because she was not authorized OHA or BHA for her husband in the states, only for her son who was there in Brussels with her.

	e.  At no time had she told anyone that her husband would go overseas and the fact remained that she was told she was authorized these entitlements.

5.  A memorandum, dated 23 April 2012, from HRC, approved partial remission of $4,669.50 of her $9,338.99 debt.  The memorandum did not provide specific details as to any specific portions of the debt being remitted.  The review determined that no grounds existed to remit or cancel the debt based on hardship or injustice.  She was advised she could apply to the ABCMR for further review.

6.  A memorandum, dated 30 October 2012, from USAG Benelux, authorized travel at the government's expense from overseas to Goldsboro, NC for her son. The purpose of travel was for a family member with an approved ERD from an overseas area.  Her son departed Belgium on 13 July 2012.

7.  An email, dated 5 March 2014, from Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) states that the HRC remissions office basically remitted half of the applicant's entire debt of $9,338.99, not any specific portion of the debt.  HRC determined the debt was created on an error of both parties (the applicant and DFAS), so she should be responsible for half of the debt.

8.  Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR) section U10002 (Housing Allowance) states:

	a.  Effective 1 January 1998, in general, a member on active duty entitled to basic pay is authorized a housing allowance based on the member’s grade, dependency status, and location.  Rates are prescribed depending on the member’s grade and whether or not the member has a dependent.  

	b.  The location determines the rate, and whether the allowance is BAH or OHA.  

		(1)  The BAH rate is based on median housing costs and is paid independently of a member’s actual housing costs.  It is paid for housing in the United States.				
		
		(2)  OHA is a cost reimbursement based allowance.  The authority depends on other elements that factor in such as sharers, utilities, and owner vs. renter.  OHA is paid for housing outside the United States.  The member is reimbursed actual rental costs not to exceed the maximum OHA rate for each locality and grade.  The maximum OHA rates are established based on members’ actual rental costs in those locations.

9.  JFTR section U10020 (OHA - General) states:

	a.  The OHA program is designed to help offset housing expenses for a member and/or dependent at the assigned overseas location.  The reported housing must be the actual residence that the member occupies and from which the member commutes to and from work on a daily basis.

	b.  OHA is authorized to assist a member in defraying the housing costs incurred incident to assignment to a permanent duty station outside the United States.  Every member authorized to live in private sector leased/owned housing is authorized OHA, provided a DD Form 2367 (Individual Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA) Report is completed by the member and approved by the senior officer of the Uniformed Services in the country concerned, or the individuals or offices designated for that purpose by the senior officer.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The exact cause of the applicant's $9,338.99 debt is not clear.  It appears DFAS changed her rate of BAH after she was married while on leave in Miami, FL.  However, she was already receiving OHA based on her dependent son who was residing with her in Brussels, Belgium.   
2.  HRC only approved remission or cancellation of half of the $9,338.99 debt and stated that no grounds existed to remit or cancel the debt based on hardship or injustice.  According to DFAS the debt was created on an error of both the applicant and DFAS, so she was held responsible for only half of the debt.

3.  In view of the above, there is an insufficient basis on which to grant relief in this case.

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)                                         AR20130006393



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130006393



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1