IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  20 October 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140009709 


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 duplicate applications, remission/cancellation of debt he incurred as a result of an officer critical skills retention bonus (CSRB) he received.

2.  The applicant states:

* he received an officer CSRB in 2008 while on Title 10 orders overseas
* in late 2013 the Florida Army National Guard (FLARNG) was audited for administration of its bonus incentive program
* he was notified that his bonus was to be recouped due to wording on his orders, lack of a bonus control number, and lack of dates on his contract
* he was told to submit an exception to policy (ETP) to the National Guard Bureau (NGB) 
* NGB denied his request and provided a number of reasons why his bonus should not have been awarded 
* he feels the NGB denial is unjust and he had no control of the actions of Government employees 
* the circumstances of the contract met every stipulation as identified in the policy and as described by his major command and State incentive manager (IM)
* the contract was signed in theater, returned, approved, and both the initial payment and anniversary payment were paid
* the bonus is now over 6 years old and he had no reason to believe there was an issue with the bonus prior to his recent notification
* he has made every attempt to answer questions regarding his orders as well as why the IM did not request a bonus control number (BCN) in a timely fashion
* although he believes a statute of limitations no longer applies to bonus payments, he believes that the issue is not his fault and the money should not be recouped as it will cause a financial hardship 

3.  The applicant provides:

* Memorandum for Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), dated 21 May 2014
* FLARNG Recommendation for approval an ETP, dated 20 May 2014
* NGB Request for ETP, dated 30 December 2013
* Memorandum for Training of Reserve Component Units and Individuals in Areas Designated for receipt of Hostile fire/Imminent Danger Pay and Combat Zones, dated 14 February 2008 (two copies)
* Approval for ARNG Units to Conduct Overseas Deployment for Training (ODT) in a Designated Receipt of Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger Pay and Combat Zone, dated 20 February 2008 (two copies)
* Orders 041-194, dated 4 March 2008 (two copies)
* Orders D-3, dated 7 January 2008
* Orders E-17, dated 21 February 2008 (two copies)
* Orders F-26, dated 7 March 2008 (two copies)
* Order Number Assignment (two copies)
* Orders F-38, dated 11 March 2008 (two copies)
* Orders 045-090, dated 11 March 2008
* Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) Travel Voucher, dated 5 May 2008
* Jumps Leave and Earnings Statements (LES) Online Inquiry System printouts
* Officer/Warrant Officer Written Agreement – Army Reserve Component (RC) Critical Skills CSRB), dated 16 March 2008
* DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), dated 6 November 2013 (two copies)
* Orders 227-020, dated 14 August 2008
* Orders 269-028, dated 25 September 2008
* Orders 104-024, dated 14 April 2011
* Designation of Primary/Secondary Area of Concentration (AOC) and/or Skill Identifier (SI) memorandum, dated 7 November 2011
* Army RC Overseas Training Ribbon, dated 16 May 2008
* DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record)
* email between himself and other Army Officials
* Department of Defense Instruction Number 1205.21 (Reserve Component Incentive Programs Procedures), dated 20 September 1999
* Temporary Policy Message Providing Implementation Guidance for Use of New CSRB for ARNG Officers and Warrant Officers and United States Army Reserve
* ARNG Implementation Guidance for the ARNG CSRB, dated 1 February 2008

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  With prior enlisted service, the applicant was appointed in the FLARNG on 
18 July 1998, in the rank of second lieutenant (O-1).  He was promoted to first lieutenant (O-2) on 18 July 2000 and to captain (O-3) on 1 September 2003.  He served in a variety of assignments in troop program units and in the Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) program.

2.  He was ordered again to full-time National Guard duty in the AGR program on 24 May 2006 for an indefinite period.  The authority as cited on Orders P145-004, dated 25 May 2006, was Title 32, U.S. Code, section 502(f). 

3.  On 4 March 2008, Orders 041-194 were published ordering the applicant on temporary duty (TDY) to Salalah, Oman for 21 days of ODT, effective 16 March 2008.  On 11 March 2008, his orders were amended to read 22 days of ODT, effective 15 March 2008.  Additional instructions show in item e, "AGR Soldier in Title 10 status for duration of OCONUS [Outside the Continental United States] TDY."  Item h shows, "Orders to OCONUS TDY will constitute an order to active duty under Title 10, USC, section 672 (d) for the TDY duration."

4.  On 16 March 2008, the applicant signed an Officer/Warrant Officer Written Agreement – Army RC CSRB addendum acknowledging that in connection with his assignment he met the following criteria:

	a.  He was area of concentration qualified (AOCQ)/military occupational specialty qualified (MOSQ) and serving in a valid position vacancy of a unit/troop program unit of the Selected Reserve.

	b.  His AOC/MOS was a designated critical skill and was included on the current CSRB list.

	c.  His current grade was on the current CSRB list and he would not attain or exceed 25 years of service on active duty or in an active status during the bonus agreement period.

	d.  He had completed his statutory military service obligation.

	e.  He had 6 or more years and not more than 12 years of commissioned service from his date of commission.

	f.  He was not within 12 months of a transfer from active duty or another component of the Selected Reserve.

	g.  He possessed a valid baccalaureate degree from an accredited institution  of higher learning.

	h.  He had not been non-selected for promotion to major by a Department of the Army Mandatory Promotion Selection Board.

	i.  If he was a warrant officer, he had not less than 12 and not more than 18 years of service.

	j.  He was not currently under contract for any bonus in a Selective Reserve unit.

	k.  He would continue to serve in AOC/MOS 11A (Infantry Officer) designated as a critical skill for a period of 3 years from the date of the written agreement.

	l.  He would serve satisfactorily, as prescribed by the service regulations and the written agreement for the entire period of his agreement in the specified component.

	m.  He would waive any and all mobilization stabilization or deferments and to mobilize with his unit of assignment regardless of previous mobilization and deployments.

5.  In the agreement, the applicant acknowledged that he must satisfactorily serve for 3 years in a CSRB designated critical skill AOC/MOS to receive the $20,000.00 bonus.  The agreement the applicant signed includes reasons for CSRB termination and recoupment that include:

* voluntarily transfer to a non-critical skill AOC/MOS, except to fulfill promotion obligation
* unsatisfactory participant
* fail to become AOC/MOS qualified within 24 months, following an involuntary reassignment to a critical skill other than that for which the agreement states

The reasons for termination with no recoupment action follow:

* injury or illness of Service member
* service-directed employment in another military specialty or drawdown or elimination of the specialty or an involuntary reduction-in-force
* separation or reassignment for hardship or dependency

6.  On 2 December 2008, FLARNG Orders P337-001 were published transferring the applicant to Orlando, FL and assigning him as the recruiting and retention officer to serve as a U.S. Army Medical Department recruiter, effective 15 August 2008.  The maximum rank and grade for the position was major/O-4.  The orders specify that he must become qualified in his new duty MOS (43A00) within 4 months from the date of assignment.  (The new MOS was not listed as a critical skills MOS.)

7.  The applicant was promoted to major (O-4) on 24 December 2008.

8.  The applicant did not submit copies of his initial notification of CSRB recoupment or his request for ETP.  He did provide email communications, dated 26 September 2013, that show he was advised by the State Incentive Manager Assistant to submit an ETP request and to expressly request retention of the paid bonus. He responded by email and submitted evidence to support award of the CSRB. On 30 December 2013, he was notified by the NGB that his request for an ETP was denied.  The Deputy G-1 stated:

	a.  The applicant was not serving in the MOS for which contracted which violates ARNG CSRB policy dated 1 February 2008.

	b.  The applicant did not meet eligibility requirements in accordance with regulatory guidance which violates ARNG CSRB Policy dated 1 February 2008.

	c.  The applicant's contract/bonus addendum contains missing signature dates from him and his service representative which violates ARNG CSRB policy dated 1 February 2008.

	d.  The bonus control number (BCN) was requested after the date of accession, affiliation, enlistment, or reenlistment/extension which violates ARNG CSRB policy dated 1 February 2008.

9.  The ETP denial notification states that the applicant was never eligible for the CSRB.  While he was in an ODT status for several days in Kuwait, he was never actually mobilized and he was never deployed in support of the Global War on Terror in the theaters of Iraq, Afghanistan or Kuwait.  Since he was serving as an AGR officer when he signed the bonus addendum, and was not deployed to one of the aforementioned countries, he did not meet the eligibility requirements for the CSRB.  The ETP denial notification shows the applicant's contract agreement details as follows:

	a.  State enlisted/accessed:  FL; Unit Identification Code (UIC): PW2B0

	b.  Date of agreement/enlistment:  16 March 2008

	c.  Contracted bonus addendum/agreement amount:  $20,000.00

	d.  Contracted AOC/MOS:  11A; Current AOC/MOS: 42H

	e.  Date DMOSQ:  12 March 1999

10.  The applicant was selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel (O-5) on 29 January 2014 and is currently serving an AGR tour.

11.  In a memorandum for ARBA, dated 20 May 2014, the FLARNG Deputy Chief of Staff Personnel recommended approval of the applicant's request for an ETP regarding his eligibility and subsequent payments for the fiscal year (FY) 2008 CSRB.  He stated that the applicant submitted a signed bonus addendum while in Kuwait in a Title 10 status on 16 March 2008 to support Exercise Inferno Creek in Salalah, Oman.  He deployed into theater in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom as shown by his LESs for the periods 1 January 2008 through 30 April 2008 where he received Hostile Fire Pay/Combat Zone Tax Exemption status.  

12.  The FLARNG Deputy Chief of Staff Personnel stated that the applicant's CSRB contract was subsequently approved by their incentive branch in April 2008.  He received his initial payment (50 percent) of the bonus in May 2008.  In April 2010, the anniversary payment was submitted through DFAS for final payment of the CSRB.  In September 2014, the FLARNG received notification from DFAS that the CSRB bonus program had been audited and that the bonus for the applicant was to be terminated.  He submitted a request for an ETP which was disapproved and the disapproval cited discrepancies in both the bonus contract as well as the status in which the applicant was serving at the time.  The IM was given instructions to terminate with recoupment.  The applicant provided justification citing responses to each of the discrepancies but was told he may file a claim with the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).  

13.  In a memorandum for ARBA, dated 21 May 2014, the applicant reiterated the information contained in the memorandum for ARBA from the FLARNG Deputy Chief of Staff Personnel and he stated that he submitted his CSRB contract while he was in the Kuwait Theater of Operations.  He added that he was told to sign the contract, have it witnessed by a lieutenant colonel or higher, and then return it via email to the IM.  He responded to the NGB's reasons for denial of his request for an ETP as follows:

	a.  At the time the contract was written he was serving in an 11A slot; however, in August 2008, he was selected for reassignment/promotion within the Title 32 AGR program and was subsequently moved into a 1A (Branch Immaterial) slot.  In accordance with ARNG CSRB Policy, paragraph 9a(3), movement to a non-critical AOC is cause for termination with recoupment unless the move is due to normal career progression (promotion) or is required by the needs of the ARNG.  In his case, he was moved to his new position based on the needs of the FLARNG and he did receive a promotion to major as a result of the move.  It should also be noted that his new position was a 42B(H) series slot which was also eligible for the CSRB as indicated on page 6 of their policy.  As a member of the Joint Force Headquarters, he was eligible to deploy during the remainder of his contract period in either his new 42 series primary or 11 series secondary AOC.

	b.  He believes that he met every requirement of the CSRB policy as he was an AGR officer and was deployed in support of a Title 10 mission.  He was in Kuwait on Title 10 TDY orders when his contract was signed and returned to his IM in FL. The ODT was not in an active training or other training status and required special permission from the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs).  In total, he was in theater for 37 days.  It should be noted that he was placed on orders under Title 10, USC, section 672(d).

	c.  He was instructed by his State IM not to date the contract and that he would request the BCN and date the contract all at the same time.  There would be no reason for him to leave out a date unless told to do so.  He has since been told that it was a common practice for addendums.  This action was not his fault and should have been corrected by the IM upon receipt of the contract.

	d.  Regarding the date of the BCN being different than the date in which he requested the bonus, the IM should have requested the BCN as soon as the contract was received from the applicant and the witnessing officer in Kuwait.  This action was not his fault and it should have been corrected by the IM.

	e.  In regards to never being eligible to receive the CSRB at the time of signing the addendum, he reiterated the statements he made in paragraph b above.

	f.  After the initial disapproval from NGB regarding his ETP, he was told that the NGB had added to the Department of the Army guidance for the CSRB regarding the limitation for Title 32 AGR officers.  He also spoke with officials about what he believed to be vague wording regarding mobilization or deployment in the NGB policy.  He goes on to explain why he believes the wording to be vague with regard to what constitutes a deployment.

	g.  The CSRB was not expected nor had he ever received a bonus prior in his career.  Had a true issue been identified within a reasonable timeframe, then he could better understand a possible mistake on behalf of the U.S. Army.  Unfortunately, this purported mistake is now 6 years old and the funds received have long been expended on his growing family and needs.

14.  During the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 on 14 August 2014, recommending disapproval of the applicant's case.  The advisory opinion states:

	a.  The applicant was a Title 32 AGR officer at the time he purportedly signed the CSRB bonus agreement.

	b.  The CSRB was authorized for ARNGUS officers by the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness from 12 December 2007 until 11 December 2010.

	c.  In order to be eligible for the CSRB, the applicant must have met the Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) policy criteria specified in paragraph 2A(3A) of All Army Activities (ALARACT) Message 2007/2008 and the 1 February 2008 NGB implementation guidance.  It should be noted that paragraph 2 of ALARACT 007/2008 authorized the Director, ARNG to approve more restrictive criteria for ARNGUS officers than the HQDA policy.

	d.  The applicant met the HQDA eligibility criteria for the CSRB.  However, the NGB implementation guidance states in paragraph 4 that AGR officers are only eligible for CSRB if deployed in support of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) in the theaters of Iraq, Afghanistan or Kuwait.  A review of the applicant's application reveals he was serving on ODT orders on the day he purportedly signed the CSRB agreement and his travel voucher indicates he was only in the Kuwait Theater for the period 16 March through 17 March 2008 (1 day).  It is clear from the NGB's disapproval of the applicant's request for an ETP that the NGB policy required an AGR officer to be deployed to the listed theater, not on TDY or ODT.

	e.  The Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, concurs with the NGB's position that the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria when he purportedly signed the CSRB bonus agreement.

	f.  A review of the CSRB agreement indicates that he was presented the agreement by another captain as the service representative.  Section II of the CSRB agreement states the service representative is responsible for reading and explaining the CSRB requirements outlined in the written agreement.  Following the reading, explanation, and affixing of proper initials and signatures, a copy of the written agreement would be provided to the officer and inserted into the military personnel file.  The service representative would have had to have been physically present with the applicant in Kuwait to present and explain the CSRB to him and to affix his signature on the agreement immediately after he signed his name.

	g.  There is no evidence in the official military personnel records of the service representative showing that he was deployed or TDY in Kuwait or OCONUS on the date the agreement was purportedly signed.  Therefore, in addition to the missing dates the agreement does not appear to have been properly administered in accordance with the HQDA policy.

15.  In response to the advisory opinion, the applicant submitted a memorandum for ARBA dated 9 September 2014.  He states, as verified by the HQDA G-1, he was eligible for the CSRB in accordance with policy criteria published by HQDA.  However, 5 years after payment, it was identified that the NGB implementation guidance added additional restrictive criteria for a small portion of ARNGUS officers, those belonging to the AGR career program.  At the time he signed and submitted his CSRB contract and the G-1 IM for the FLARNG processed the bonus, it was honestly believed that he was fully eligible for the bonus.  He states:

	a.  At the basis of this issue are the additional restrictive criteria added in the NGB implementation guidance; he questions the validity of the guidance as statutory policy.  He believes that the guidance discriminates against a small portion of the overall officer pool that could receive the CSRB.  As such, only the ARNGUS AGR officers have to bear the additional criteria established by NGB.  All other active component officers, United States Army Reserve (USAR) officers to include USAR AGR and traditional ARNGUS officers, are not subject to this penalization.  Only ARNGUS AGR officers as a result of their full time employment with the State are penalized.

	b.  Although insignificant to this situation, he has served in Afghanistan as an infantry officer on an Embedded Training Team with the Afghanistan National Army for a period of 13 months prior to the release of this CSRB policy.  He has also deployed in other areas of responsibility (AOR) throughout his career.  During the period in question, he received Forces Command orders ordering him (and his Soldiers) from Title 32 status into a Title 10 status for the purpose of training military forces in the Kuwait AOR.  He received Hostile Fire Pay/Imminent Danger Pay during that period not only because of being in Kuwait, but because the Sultanate of Oman is listed as a country in the AOR that supports the GWOT and is within the region that receives these entitlements.

	c.  The exercise named Inferno Creek is a company level, light/heavy infantry exercise conducted with Omani ground forces.  As an added note, Oman has been listed as a geographical area that supports awarding of the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal since 2005.  According to the NGB, a service member would have to have orders stating he/she is being deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom or the GWOT.  In his case, the statement was not annotated, yet the funding codes on his orders were determined to be from GWOT supplemental funding for FY08.  He disagrees with what he was told by the NGB as to what constitutes a deployment.

	d.  According to the process in place at the time, the service member would not receive a copy for their personal file until a BCN was issued, since in most every case the IM that requests the BCN is not co-located with the service member completing the contract.  He and the witness were overseas and the IM and service representative were not present since the entire unit did not deploy.  He knew he was deploying to Kuwait when the CSRB was announced.  He was told to take the contract with him to Kuwait, sign it, and then have it signed by a witnessing officer.  It had to be scanned and emailed back to the IM in order to have a BCN assigned.  He was specifically told to sign but not date the document as the BCN and signature date had to match.  

	e.  Recoupment of the bonus after a period of 6 years and after multiple previous deployments is an injustice.  He questions if there is a statute of limitations regarding military pay and bonuses.  Our leadership always talks about giving the benefit of the doubt to the service member; that when there is a policy error, we should correct the issue and ensure that the individual Soldier does not get hurt.  Yet, as he prepares to depart the military after 24 years of active duty service, his one and only bonus of his entire career is being threatened.  He was in no position to submit for a bonus without higher authority and multiple layers of approvals.  This issue only came to light after numerous other bonus issues were identified with multiple State ARNG IMs that caused an audit to be conducted and the IM to be removed.  He hopes that the Board looks at this holistically and realizes that recoupment after such a long period will cause his family an extreme financial hardship.
16.  On 1 February 2008, NGB published implementation guidance for the ARNG CSRB.  The guidance stated that, among other requirements, eligible officers must have completed any current contractual obligation or bonus contract obligation incurred as a result of participation in the officer affiliation bonus and must have been fully qualified and serving in a designated critical skill AOC in a qualifying unit.  A list of the CSRB program's critical AOCs included AOC 11A but not 43A.  Within this guidance are instructions for the termination and recoupment of the CSRB.

* failure to satisfactorily participate in required training
* separation from the ARNG for any reason 
* movement to a non-critical AOC unless the move is due to normal career progression (promotion) or required because of the needs to the ARNG
* acceptance of an AGR or military technician position
* recoupment actions will not be initiated if the service member entered into contract while deployed in support of GWOT in the theaters of Iraq, Afghanistan or Kuwait

17.  The Department of the Army (DA) Personnel Policy Guidance (PPG) defines a deployee as one who supports the overseas contingency operation (OCO) to include the active component, Reserve component (USAR and ARNG), appropriated and non-appropriated DA civilians, contractors, Army and Air Force Exchange Service civilian personnel, Red Cross volunteers and any other military service members deploying in support of OCO.

18.  Army Regulation 350-28 (Training – Army Exercises) sets DA policy and procedures for military exercises.  It guides the development and conduct of exercise programs for major Army commands (MACOMs) and the support of, and participation in Army exercises directed by DA, joint and combined exercises within the purview of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff including exercises sponsored by a commander in chief of U.S. combatant commands.  Military exercises simulate wartime operations.  Their realistic, battle-focused setting helps train battlefield commanders, staff, and units for combat.  The realistic setting also helps train support commanders, staffs, installations, and units in mobilizing, deploying, and sustaining operational forces.  Commanders use exercises to tie unit training to command training strategy and to check training execution.  Military exercises enhance force readiness and mobilization preparedness.  They help integrate units and staffs performing separate battlefield functions into combined armed forces. 

19.  Army Regulation 350-9 (ODT) provides DA policy and guidance for the conduct of ODT by continental United States Reserve component units.  It provides the guidelines to plan, execute, and assess training outside the continental U.S. (OCONUS) and U.S. territories or possessions in a training status.  RC units execute ODT primarily to improve their mission readiness; however, RC units conducting ODT also fulfill capability requirements shortfalls for an Army service component command’s theater engagement, security cooperation, forward presence, and stabilization and mission support activities.  RC unit participating in ODT should look for opportunities to train to the full spectrum of operations.  The objectives of ODT are to:

* provide RC units an opportunity to conduct unit-based collective mission essential task list (METL) training while incorporating mobilization, deployment, reception and redeployment activities
* improve RC readiness to execute their role as part of the Joint force through participation in Joint exercise and training in a Joint context
* provide critical capabilities to the Army service component command

20.  Exercise Inferno Creek is a U.S. Central Command directed Third Army/ARCENT executed, biennial exercise conducted in Oman.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions have been noted.  His supporting evidence has been considered.  The question in this case is whether the CSRB he received in April 2008 and December 2010 should be recouped based on the presumption he was entitled to the CSRB.

2.  A key argument raised by the applicant to support his contention to retain the CSRB is that he was deployed to Oman.  A review of the available evidence and pertinent regulations does not support his contention that he was deployed.  He was in a TDY status to support an ODT training exercise in Oman in 2008 for a period of 3 weeks.  Based on his TDY location, he and his RC unit members were entitled to receive Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger Pay.  Receipt of this pay does not mean one is deployed.  It means they are in a geographical area authorized special incentive pay.  Due to his route of authorized travel he passed through Kuwait and remained there for 1 day before continuing his travel to his final destination for the military exercise Inferno Creek.  A deployee is one who supports an OCO.  An exercise is not an OCO. 
   
3.  When he was in Kuwait (1 day), he partially completed and signed a CRSB addendum.  He did not date the addendum.  He emailed it to his State IM for further processing.  As he was out-of-country, the appropriate State IM did not witness his signature or request or assign a BCN on the date the applicant states he completed the CRSB.  Based on his 1 day in Kuwait, he alleges he is entitled to the CRSB and should retain the bonus. 

4.  Through his arguments, he consistently states that he was only following the verbal instructions of Government employees.  However, a thorough review shows the CRSB was incorrectly completed which violates ARNG policy.  (The HQDA G-1 advisory opinion did state he met the intent of the CRSC criteria though ARNG imposed stricter criteria.)  ARNG policy stated, at the time, an AGR officer must be deployed to three specific countries (Iraq, Afghanistan or Kuwait) for entitlement to the CRSB in 2008.  The key word is deployed.  An RC ODT exercise by definition is not a deployment to support an OCO.  While the applicant argues Oman meets the criteria for award of the GWOT as its location supports the GWOT mission, the applicant’s TDY was not in direct support of the combatant commander’s mission.  The ODT exercise is a specified Third Army exercise conducted biennially in Oman.  

5.  There are no orders in the applicant's official record showing that he was ordered to the Kuwait, Iraq, or Afghanistan in support of GWOT during the time period he initiated his CSRB addendum.  Therefore, in accordance with ARNG policy, as an AGR officer he was not entitled to the CRSB for his 1 day layover in Kuwait.  As he was not entitled to the CRSB, recoupment action was initiated.  

6.  The applicant's contention regarding the length of time that has passed since he received the bonus has also been considered.  However, there is no statute of limitation on recouping funds erroneously paid by the Government.  

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)                                         AR20140009709



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140009709



14


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1