IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    31 October 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130014666 


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 correction of her records by restoring the missing documents to show she applied for and was approved for the Health Professions Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP) and relief of recoupment of the Critical Skills Retention Bonus (CSRB) that she received.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, she signed documents for the HPLRP when she was commissioned and remained eligible for the program.  She was never told that any other documents were necessary.  However, it appears that the documents did not make it to her records or the necessary officials and recoupment actions have been initiated.  Additionally, she received a CSRB for which she was told she was qualified to receive and now she is being told that she was not eligible to receive it and it is being recouped.

3.  The applicant provides:

* documents she signed relating to the HPLRP and CSRB
* documents related to the audit review by the National Guard Bureau (NGB) incentives program manager
* email traffic substantiating that she attempted to validate her eligibility for the CSRB
* documents from her Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR)


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 8 March 2004, the applicant completed a USAREC Form 1206 (U.S. Army Reserve and Army National Guard Incentives Declaration Statement) indicating she had accepted the terms of the Health Care Professional Bonus Program (HCPBP) and the HPLRP.

2.  On 30 August 2004, she was appointed as a first lieutenant (1LT) in the California Army National Guard (CAARNG) for duty as a physician’s assistant.  She was promoted to the rank of captain (CPT) on 8 February 2008 and to the rank of major (MAJ) on 15 August 2012.

3.  Meanwhile, on 9 September 2008 she signed an agreement for a CSRB in the amount of $20,000.00.

4.  On 11 September 2012, the CAARNG dispatched a memorandum to the applicant notifying her that she had erroneously received $50,000.00 in payments under the HPLRP and $30,000.00 in payments under the CSRB; however, there was no evidence of an HPLRP agreement in her records and she was not eligible for a CSRB because her specialty was not on the critical skills list.  She was also advised that she was subject to recoupment of $80,000.00.

5.  In the processing of this case, on 15 August 2013, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the NGB.  The advisory official opines that while the applicant was eligible for the HPLRP and paid the incentives associated with the program, there is no evidence of a valid loan contract or agreement on file that constitutes erroneous payments of the HPLRP benefits.  Additionally, she contracted for a CSRB in the amount of $20,000.00 but was paid $30,000.00 and she was not eligible for a CSRB because her specialty was not on the critical skills list at the time she was approved for the bonus.

	a.  Officials at the NGB recommend the CAARNG be afforded the opportunity to reconstruct and submit a valid contract and complete packet on the Soldier’s behalf and if it is determined that she was in fact eligible, recoupment action for the $50,000.00 in HPLRP benefits be stopped and her loan be declared a valid loan.

	b.  Regarding the CSRB, officials at the NGB opine that the applicant should not be held responsible for relying on the subject matter expert (SME) concerning her eligibility and approval of incentives and recommend that she be held accountable for the overpayment of $10,000.00.


	c.    The CAARNG concurred with the recommendation.

6.  On 21 August 2013, by email, a copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for information and to allow her the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal.  On 27 August 2013, she responded by email.  She stated, in effect, that she concurred with the opinion.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant contracted for the HPLRP at the time she was accessed into the CAARNG and it is apparent that she relied on the SME at the time to complete the necessary documents to establish her eligibility for the incentive.

2.  However, it is also apparent that either the necessary documents were not prepared or that they were misplaced before reaching the appropriate authorities for filing.  In any event, she was paid the incentive and subsequently notified that because the documents establishing her eligibility could not be located she would be required to repay the benefits received under the HPLRP.

3.  Therefore, as a matter of equity, the CAARNG and the applicant should be afforded the opportunity to reconstruct the required documents to establish her eligibility to receive the benefits at the time of her appointment.

4.  In the event that her eligibility is established, recoupment action will be stopped for the $50,000.00 HPLRP benefits received and the loan will be declared valid.

5.  In the event that the loan is not determined to be valid, recoupment action will be reinstated.

6.  Regarding the CSRB, the applicant contracted for a $20,000.00 CSRB and was paid $30,000.00 in CSRB benefits; however, she was not eligible for a CSRB.

7.  The available evidence suggests the applicant relied on the advice provided by the incentives manager of the CAARNG at the time and she was erroneously approved for the CSRB and paid $10,000.00 more than she contracted for.



8.  Inasmuch as she relied on the SME of the CAARNG at the time she entered into the CSRB, much to her detriment, she should be granted an exception to policy and be allowed to retain the $20,000.00 CSRB she contracted for.  However, she should not be allowed to retain the additional $10,000.00 that was paid and not contracted for.

9.  Accordingly, recoupment action for the additional $10,000.00 of CSRB benefits should be effected.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___X____  ___X___  ___X____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army and State Army National Guard records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

* Allowing the CAARNG to reconstruct the applicant’s HPLRP contract/agreement to determine her eligibility for HPLRP benefits at the time she was appointed
* If eligibility was established her debt is to be declared an invalid debt
* If eligibility is not established, recoupment action will be taken
* Showing that the applicant was granted an exception to policy by the appropriate authority to retain the $20,000.00 CSRB bonus she contracted for

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented was insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to cancelling/remitting the debt 


of the additional $10,000.00 in CSRB benefits she received and did not contract for.



      __________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)                                         AR20130014666



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130014666



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1