DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No.  2011-089  
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 

 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
This proceeding was conducted according to the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and 
section  425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.    The  Chair  docketed  the  application  upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application on February 2, 2011, and subsequently prepared 
the final decision as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  January  12,  2012,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST  

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  to  show  that  he  is  not 
indebted to the government for over $9,000.00 resulting from an alleged overpayment on travel 
claims that he submitted during a period of active duty.   
 

The applicant  is  a reservist  currently  on the Coast  Guard  Reserve  Retired  List (RET-2).  
In 2003, the applicant was serving on inactive duty when he was activated under Title 10 of the 
United  States  Code  for  active  duty  from  October  1,  2003  to  August  30,  2005.    Housing  and 
messing  were  not  available  at  the  assigned  active  duty  site,  so  the  applicant  was  authorized 
approximately $94.00 per day for quarters and mess.  During his active duty period, the applicant 
lived  in  a  hotel.    His  duties  required  him  to  travel  on  temporary  duty  (TDY)  to  various  other 
locations.    On  his  travel  claims,  he  requested  reimbursement  for  lodging  while  on  TDY,  in 
addition to lodging at his permanent work site.  The applicant’s orders did not authorize the use 
of his private vehicle (POV) in the performance of his TDY duties.  The applicant filed claims 
for reimbursements at least monthly.  The Coast Guard claims that the applicant was overpaid on 
his  travel  claims  and  that  he  is  indebted  to  the  government  for  over  $7,000.00.   The  applicant 
denies that he was overpaid or that he is indebted to the government.   
 
 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND DISCUSSION 

 

(The  following  discussion  is  taken  from  documents  submitted  by  both  the applicant  and 

the Coast Guard in an effort to describe how events unfolded). 

 
At  the  end  of  October  2003,  the  applicant  submitted  his  first  claim  for  reimbursement.  
This  claim  included  expenses  for  the  month  related  to  his  permanent  duty  site  and  expenses 
related  to  two  days  of  TDY  for  October  16th  and  17th.   According  to  the  Coast  Guard  Finance 
Center schedule of payments, the applicant received reimbursement on this claim in the amount 
of $3,047.50 on November 10, 2003 through check no. 746630.   

 
During  his  active  duty  period,  the  applicant  appears  to  have  submitted  claims  for 
reimbursement  on  at  least  a  monthly  basis.    However,  on  June  10,  2005,  the  Commanding 
Officer of the Personnel Service Center (PSC) notified the applicant that he had been overpaid in 
the amount of $3,047.95.   

 
On June 14, 2005, the payment authorizing official notified the applicant that he was also 
overpaid  in  the  amount  of  $2,289.25  for  June  2004  travel.    The  applicant  left  active  duty  on 
August 30, 2005.  He submitted his revised Leave and Earnings Statement (LES) for the period 
from August  1, 2005 to August  31,  2005, that reflected transactions as of September 22, 2005.  
The  LES  states that  it was the applicant’s final  active duty  LES.    It showed a  “TRAVEL ADV 
DEBT  COLLECTION  STATUS:    TOTAL  AMOUNT  $3,047.95”  and  “TRAVEL  ADV  DEBT 
COLLECTION STATUS:  TOTAL AMOUNT $2,879.25.”  The LES also shows that he sold 43 
days of regular leave at a value of $3,553.42. 

 
 On  October  4,  2005,  PSC  notified  the  applicant  that  he  was  overpaid  in  the  amount  of 
$5,345.16      “due  to  data  received  to  start  liquidating  TRAVEL  [ADVANCE]  on  30  August 
2005.”    The  applicant  stated  he  contacted  PSC  and  was  told  that  he  had  completed  all  travel 
forms  and  audits  satisfactorily  and  that  the  problem  arose  because  the  documents  were  not 
processed and had not been routed up the chain of command.   

 
On  February  28,  2006,  the  applicant  complained  to  his  congressman  about  several 
matters  including  the  alleged  overpayment  in  the  amount  of  $5,345.16  that  was  noted  on  the 
back of his last LES.  He stated that when he inquired about it, he was told that the travel claims 
and forms  that he had submitted were not  processed.  After that, he resubmitted all the needed 
forms and the LES still showed that he owed $5,345.16.   
 

On  April  27,  2006,  the  Coast  Guard  responded  on  an  inquiry  from  the  applicant’s 

congressman about his debt situation.  The letter stated the following: 

 
[The applicant’s] travel debt resulted from being paid twice for the same periods 
of travel in 2004.  Since he received two payments for the same period, he  must 
pay a remaining balance of $2,297.21. 
 
Upon  release  from  active  duty,  [the  applicant]  sold  43.5  days  of  leave  and 
received  $2,083.07  after  taxes.    This  payment  is  documented  in  his August  pay 

 

 

 

statement.      PSC  collected  $582.04  from  this  sum  as  payment  toward  his 
outstanding travel debt. 

On  September  21,  2006,  PSC  wrote  the  applicant  and  told  him  that  documentation 
showed that he owed $2, 297.21 for a travel advance.  The applicant was told that he could repay 
this  amount  in  one  lump  sum  or  in  monthly  installments.    The  applicant  was  also  told  that  he 
owed $223.00 that was advanced to him to cover his SGLI premiums.   
 
 
 
On  October  5,  2006,  the  applicant  wrote  to  his  congressman  stating  that  after  
resubmitting documentation that had not been processed, he thought the overpayment issues had 
been resolved because he was told that all was okay and that he should not owe the money.  He 
stated that he was told that the $2,297.21 overpayment was for a travel advance.  The applicant 
stated that he never received any advances because he had a government credit card and did not 
need  a  travel  advance.    He  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard  did  not  provide  him  with  any 
documentation showing that he was overpaid.   
 

On  November  3,  2006,  the  Chief  of  the  Operations  Division,  PSC  sent  the  applicant  a 
letter stating that as a result of his congressman’s inquiry, it had performed a complete audit of 
all  processed  travel  claims  associated  with  the  applicant’s  recall  to  active  duty.    The  letter 
informed the applicant of the following: 
 

The first step in conducting this audit was determining the exact amount of money 
electronically deposited into your account for each travel period.  The second step 
was  to  determine  your  actual  allowed  entitlements  for  each  travel  period.    The 
third  step  was  to  determine  the  amount  of  money  that  had  been  applied  to  the 
reported  overpayment.    The  results  of  this  extensive  audit  revealed  that  your 
travel overpayment associated with your recall is $6,650.45.   
 
[E]ach  of  your  individual  recall  claims  was  consolidated  into  one  overarching 
claim for each fiscal year.  It was discovered during this extensive review that you 
performed  several  concurrent  temporary  duty  trips  away  from  your  recall  unit 
where  you  were  paid  per-diem  at  the  TDY  site  (where  you  were  physically 
located), and your recall site.  Although there is a provision allowing dual lodging 
payments, there is no provision for the dual payment of per-diem entitlements for 
the same period.   
 
During the audit of these concurrent TDY trips, several adjustments were required 
to correct the over and under payments.  This resulted in a net payment due you of 
$133.16.    Since  there  is  no  mechanism  to  apply  these  funds  to  the  above  debt, 
these funds will be electronically deposited into your account.   
 
Also, there were periods where  you were in  a leave status  while recalled, which 
were not reflected in your travel claim submissions.  A member is not entitled to 
per-diem  while  in  an  authorized  leave  status.    These  leave  periods  were 
documented on your leave and earnings statements.   
 

 

 

The  complete  audit  results  are  enclosed,  with  substantiating  documentation,  for 
your  review.    If  additional  travel  vouchers  with  supporting  documentation  are 
received,  they  will  be  processed  and  may  potentially  reduce  the  overpayment 
amount.   
 
On November 7, 2006, the Supervisor, Entitlements and Debts, PSC sent the applicant a 
letter stating that he was overpaid by $2,520.21.  Enclosure (1) to the letter stated that the source 
of the indebtedness was as follows: 
 

 

1.   Documentation  received  from  the  USCG  Finance  Center  indicates  you  were  paid 
TRAVEL ADVs of $3,047.95 and $2,879.25 that were not settled prior to your change in 
reserve status.  Upon your change in reserve status, you still owed $2,297.21. 

2.   Your  LES  shows  that  you  owe  $223.00  for  [SGLI].    You  were  advanced  SGLI  at  the 
monthly  rate  of  $37.00  for  February  through  June  2006,  $38.00  for  July  2006  until 
administratively  stopped August  1,  2006  for  nonpayment  of  premiums  per  Public  Law 
104-106.   
 
On November 8, 2006, the applicant again complained to his congressman that the Coast 
Guard stated that he owed over $6,000.00, and that he did not understand how he could owe this 
amount.   

 
On  December  21,  2006,  the  Coast  Guard  responded  to  a  letter  from  the  applicant’s 
congressman  stating  that  the  Coast  Guard  had  performed  an  audit  of  the  applicant’s  travel 
expenses and payments and that based on that audit, the applicant was overpaid in the amount of 
$6,650.45.  The Coast Guard assigned CWO A to work with the applicant to answer questions, to 
resolve  misunderstandings,  and  to  assist  the  applicant  with  obtaining  additional  documentation 
related to the alleged payments.  (The applicant submitted emails showing that he worked with 
CWO A but the matter was not resolved.) 

 

 
On May 10, 2007, PSC sent the applicant a notice that he owed the Coast Guard $573.00.   
  
On  March  18,  2008,  the  applicant  received  notification  that  the  debt  in  the  amount  of 
$8,744.50 had been referred to a debt collection company.  After notification that the debt was in 
collection, the applicant contacted PSC and again disputed the debt.    
 
 
waiver of the debt.   
 

The applicant submitted documentation showing that on September 17, 2008, he sought a 

The applicant also sought assistance from his senator.  On July 10, 2009, the Coast Guard 
responded to the senator’s inquiry.  The Coast Guard stated that it had reviewed the applicant’s 
travel  entitlements  and  reimbursements  for  his  entire  period  of  active  duty  that  resulted  in  a 
credit of $172.00 from  a leave adjustment.  The  Coast  Guard also  stated that a  $937.00 charge 
was debited to the applicant because he used his POV for some TDY travel, when his orders did 
not authorize POV but commercial transportation.  The letter stated that with the credit and debit 
adjustments, the applicant’s debt was $5,584.46.   

 

 

 

On  September  16,  2009,  the  senator  wrote  the  Coast  Guard  again  on  behalf  of  the 
applicant.  The letter stated that the applicant disagreed with the agency’s finding and denied that 
the debt was valid.  The Senator also stated that regardless of the validity of the overpayment, the 
applicant  was  unable  to  repay  the  debt  due  to  the  severe  financial  hardship  it  would  create  for 
him and his family.   

 
 
On  October  9,  2009,  the  Coast  Guard  responded  to  the  senator’s  letter.    It  attached 
documentation to the letter that allegedly showed the applicant’s overpayment.  The Coast Guard 
stated  that  the  largest  portion  of  the  debt  was  generated  by  duplicate  travel  payments  for  the 
periods  October  1-31,  2003  and  June  1-30,  2004.   The  Coast  Guard  also  stated  that  collection 
action would continue and the applicant would be charged interest at a rate of four percent.  The 
letter  stated  that  the  applicant  could  make  a  lump  sum  payment,  propose  an  acceptable 
repayment schedule, or propose a compromise settlement for consideration.  The letter stated that 
the  applicant’s  waiver  request  was  denied,  but  he  could  submit  another  one  with  new/updated 
information  that  may  better  explain  his  personal  circumstances.    The  documentation  enclosed 
with the letter showed an overpayment on October 24, 2005 in the amount of $2,878.50 minus a 
credit of $582.04 for a total overpayment for this period of $2,297.21.  The documentation  also 
showed that on January 13, 2006, the applicant received an erroneous payment in the amount of 
$3,224.60  for  the  period  from  October  1,  2003  through  October  31,  2003.    According  to  the 
documentation, the applicant had already received reimbursement for this period in the amount 
of $3,047.95 on November 10, 2003 and in the amount of $63.25 on January 14, 2004 for a total 
of  $3,111.20.    The  documentation  also  showed  that  the  applicant  had  been  overpaid  in  the 
amount of $1,001.51 on a TDY travel claim in which he used his unauthorized POV for travel, as 
well as other overpayments in the amount of $573.98.  The total overpayment came to $7,372.96 
which was reduced by two treasury collections in the amounts of $843.42 and $573.99 and credit 
for interest, penalties, fees, etc. in the amount of $471.09.  After certain credits, the Coast Guard 
stated that the applicant owed $5,484.46. 
 
 
On November 15, 2009, the applicant wrote to his senator stating that he still disagreed 
that the debt  was valid.  He stated that  although  the Coast  Guard noted  that his  waiver request 
was denied, the request,  he contended, was shredded because the Coast  Guard had referred the 
matter to a collection agency.  The applicant alleged that after his first congressional inquiry, the 
Coast  Guard  changed  numbers  and  travel  destinations  on  his  travel  claims  without  his 
knowledge.    The  applicant  also  stated  that  as  a  result  of  budget  cuts,  his  civilian  job  with  the 
public school system was scheduled for elimination in the near future.   
 
 
the applicant’s request for a waiver, a copy of which was enclosed with the letter. 
 

On December 9, 2009, the applicant’s senator wrote to the Coast Guard inquiring about 

 

On December 23, 2009, the Coast Guard responded to the senator’s letter stating 
 

We have reviewed the waiver in question and have determined that the waiver 
on file and the waiver [the applicant] claims was “shredded and not processed” 
was  received  by  the  Pay  and  Personnel  Center,  cover  the  same  debt,  and  are 
one  in  the  same.    His  initial  waiver  request  was  forwarded  to  Coast  Guard 
Headquarters  and  was  disapproved  on  February  18,  2009.    As  stated  in  my 

 

 

letter  of  October  9,  2009,  he  may  submit  a  new  waiver  request  with  any 
new/updated information that may better explain his personal circumstance.  

 

[The  applicant]  received  travel  payments  totaling  $70,971.73.    His  travel 
entitlements were $63,598.77 resulting in a debt of $7,372.96.  We previously 
collected $1,888.50 leaving a balance of $5,484.46.  This debt is being referred 
to the U.S. Department of Treasury for collection as required by law.     

A  note  on  a  January  13,  2010  letter  from  the  senator  to  the  applicant  stated  that  the 

 
 
applicant could not submit a new waiver request unless he provided new information.   
 
 
On March 18, 2010, the applicant received a notice from the Department of the Treasury 
stating that he owed $5,487.01 to  the Department  of Homeland Security—Coast  Guard, but  he 
was required to pay $7,023.37, which included all then-applicable fees, interest, and penalties 
 
 
 

 
The applicant concluded his statement with the following: 

[The applicant] complied with orders.  [The applicant] was authorized POV 
use  and  dual  lodging.    It  was  not  until  [the  applicant]  retired  that  issues 
arose.  PSC seems to apply leave when not taken in order to recoup money 
rightfully  paid  to  [the  applicant].    The  errors  are  due  to  PSC.    The 
command, while present, supported [the applicant]. However, as time went 
by faces and names changed.  Soon, the responses became rubber stamped 
and merely cursory based on errors already in the system.  Meanwhile, [the 
applicant] did everything correctly.   
 
Wherefore, [the applicant] requests this Board correct the many errors in his 
record that have resulted in the alleged debt.   

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  June  2,  2011,  the  Judge Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  an 
advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  relief  in  accordance  with  a  memorandum 
from the Legal Advisor (LA) for the Pay and Personnel Center (PPC). 
 
 
The LA acknowledged that reimbursements for the applicant’s active duty service and his 
TDY duties resulted in a variety of pay errors and miscalculations, some caused by the applicant 
and some caused by the pay authorizing official at the applicant’s then-unit and at PPC.  The LA 
stated that contrary to the applicant’s assertions, no one at any time has sought to attribute fault 
or  inappropriate  motive  on  the  applicant’s  part.    The  LA  stated  that  the  applicant’s  receipt  of 
duplicate payments created the indebtedness.   
 
 
The  LA  stated  that  despite  the  confusion  regarding  the  applicant’s  travel  file,  PPC  has 
reviewed the data repeatedly and has concluded that the applicant was overpaid for travel.  As a 
result of the overpayment, the applicant is responsible to the government for repayment.   In this 
regard, the LA stated that the applicant was reimbursed twice for two specific months, October 

 

 

2003 and June 2004.  According to the LA, the applicant was also indebted to the government for 
reimbursement for use of his private vehicle when his orders did not authorize such use.  The LA 
stated  that  in  2009,  the  Coast  Guard  conducted  a  complete  audit  of  the  applicant’s  active  duty 
entitlements,  the  results  of  which  were  provided  to  the  applicant  and  his  congressional 
representatives.  The LA stated that the applicant has neither refuted, nor otherwise provided any 
evidence that he did  not receive payments, nor has he provided evidence  supporting his  proper 
receipt of duplicate payments.  He simply argued that he was not overpaid.  The LA stated that 
with regard to the private vehicle issue, the applicant only indicated that his POV use for travel 
was more advantageous to the government, but he never addressed the issue that POV travel was 
not authorized in his orders.   
 
 
The LA stated that the applicant was authorized and paid for dual lodging.  However, he 
was  not  authorized  dual  per  diem  while  performing  TDY  away  from  his  unit,  nor  was  he 
authorized  per  diem  while  on  leave.   The  LA  stated  that  he  was  paid  double  per  diem  and  per 
diem while on leave on several occasions, which were discovered and accounted for in the audit.  
The LA stated, however, that these discoveries were not the cause of the applicant’s indebtedness 
to the government.  The indebtedness resulted from the applicant’s double payment for per-diem 
and lodging for the months of October 2003 and June 2004 and his overpayment for TDY travel 
to Yorktown, VA that occurred on November 24, 2003 to December 20, 2003.   
 
 
The LA stated specifically that the applicant was paid $3,047.95 on November 10, 2003, 
and $3,224.60 on January 20, 2006, for his October 1 through October 31 travel.  According to 
the 2009 audit, the correct payment for the period was $3,074.88.  The second overpayment was 
for the period June 1, 2004 to June 30, 2004.  He was paid $2,879.25 on July 12, 2004 for this 
period and $2,878.50 on October 24, 2005 for the same period.  The correct entitlement for this 
period was $2,880.00.   
 
 
With  regard  to  the  payment  for  his  POV  travel  to  Yorktown,  the  LA  stated  that  the 
applicant  was  paid  $1,405.91  on  January  21,  2004  but  the  2009  audit  determined  that  he  was 
only entitled to $404.40, resulting in a debt to the government of $1,001.51.  The LA stated that 
the PPC computes travel reimbursements based on official orders.  The applicant’s orders for the 
period in question did not authorize the use of privately owned conveyance.  The LA stated that 
the  applicant  was  initially  improperly  credited  for  the  constructive  cost  of  travel  for  using  his 
personal vehicle instead of commercial transportation.  The applicant argued that because it was 
cheaper to use his private vehicle than to take government procured transportation, he should be 
reimbursed.    The  LA  stated  that  the  applicant  did  not  seek  an  amendment  to  his  orders  to 
authorize POV travel.  The LA also stated that there was a period in which the government paid 
the applicant SGLI premiums and that cost was recouped from the applicant.  According to the 
amounts  discussed  above,  the  Coast  Guard  calculated  that  the  applicant  is  indebted  to  the 
government in the amount of $7,372.96.    
 
 
The Coast  Guard’s advisory opinion included the February 18, 2009 letter  disapproving 
the applicant’s request for a waiver of his alleged $8,828.45 overpayment, despite his command’s 
recommendation  that  the  waiver  be  approved.    In  disapproving  the  waiver  request,  the  Coast 
Guard stated the following: 
 

 

 

 

2. Under 10 U.S.C. § 2774 [the Coast Guard] has the authority to waive collection 
of  indebtedness  of  Coast  Guard  members  to  the  United  States  government.  
However, waivers are generally only appropriate when the debt is the result of an 
overpayment due to administrative error, not the result of administrative shortfall.  
Neither  failure  to  submit  appropriate  documentation  to  justify  payment  of  travel 
entitlements, nor appropriate documentation being mishandled during the process, 
justifies  a  waiver.    Waiver  action  under  10  U.S.C.  §  2774  is  a  matter  of  grace 
dispensation and not a matter of right that arises solely by virtue of a debt to the 
government through unexpected events.   
 
3.    In  the  matter  of  [the  applicant],  the  indebtedness  stems  primarily  from 
problems with the travel claim process.  Evidently there is a discrepancy between 
travel authorized and entitlements allowed as part of the travel claim liquidation.  
[The  applicant]  should  be  advised  that  he  needs  to  work  with  his  former 
command,  SPO,  and  PSC  to  correct  these  issues.    While  we  recognize  that  this 
places  an  extra  burden  on  him,  and  we  regret  the  inconvenience,  there  is  no 
requirement  under  the  law  to  grant  a  waiver  wherein  other  appropriate 
administrative  action  will  correct  the  problem.    The  waiver  process  cannot  be 
used to correct difficulties with, or blind spots, in the travel claim process.  Every 
effort  must  be  made  to  account  for  U.S.  government  funds  as  accurately  and 
completely as possible.   

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  September  2,  2011,  the  Board  received  the  applicant’s  response  to  the  views  of  the 
Coast Guard.    The applicant denied that he was overpaid for his active duty lodging, meals, and 
travel.   The  applicant  stated  that  if  there  was  any  overpayment,  that  would  have  been  an  error 
made by the approving official or the command.  The applicant also argued that the collection of 
this alleged debt will result in undue hardship for him.  The applicant further stated: 
 

[The  applicant’s]  travel  file  was  voluminous  and  confusing  because  he  was  on 
active  reserve  status  and  authorized  and  often  sent  on  TDY  with  dual  lodging.  
This is not the fault of the servicemenber . . .  The servicemember was told to go 
perform  a  mission  and  acquire  and  maintain  certain  travel  accommodations.  
These  were  approved  both  before  and  after  the  fact.    [The  applicant]  was 
following orders and to penalize him after the fact for any of the confusion is an 
injustice  and  resulting  in  an  undue  hardship.    [T]he  result  of  the  [advisory] 
opinion was to further complicate matters, penalize the wronged party   . . . and 
rubberstamp  the  litany  of  overlapping  errors  of  the  command  and  the  [Coast 
Guard] that include the after the fact recording [the applicant] as being on leave to 
account for the mistake of the agency.   

 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  while  double  payments  were  provided  to  him,  such  payments 
were authorized and appropriate.  With regard to the alleged overpayment for October 2003, the 
applicant stated the following: 
 

 

 

 

The  advisory  opinion  states  that  the  applicant  has  not  addressed  this  alleged 
overpayment.  [T]hat is not correct . . .  There were no alleged overpayment.  The 
TONO  13043033R2006000  alleged  an  overpayment  of  $3,224.60.    This  is  the 
largest  of  the  alleged  overpayments.    [The  applicant]  received  only  per  diem 
allowances.  He did not receive separate housing and subsistence allowances.  He 
only  received  reimbursement  for  the  month’s  hotel  stay  that  he  was  told  by  his 
command to go and obtain.  Importantly, it was standard course of operation over 
the entire two years he was activated to stay at this and another hotel as his main 
residence.    The  advisory  opinion,  respectfully,  clearly  does  not  understand  the 
circumstances.  If there was one night, how could this agency competently claim 
he  received  double  payments  of  $3,224.50.    Had  the  unit  simply  put  [the 
applicant]  into  the  barracks  as  requested,  this  would  not  be  haunting  the 
servicemember  who  left  his  civilian  job  and  home  to  serve  his  unit.   Again  [the 
applicant] did not take leave.   
 
[T]he  advisory  opinion  states  that  [the  applicant]  “neither  refuted  or  otherwise 
provided  any  evidence  that  he  did  not  receive  payments  nor  has  he  provided 
evidence supporting his  proper receipt of duplicate payments.”  [T]his  statement 
makes one’s head spin.  It asserts that [the applicant] is to prove a negative, which 
is,  of  course,  impossible.    The  correct  response  should  have  provided  evidence 
that  [the  applicant]  actually  did  commit  some  act  that  caused  improper 
overpayment.  Moreover, the opinion ignores the brief provided in support of [the 
applicant]  detailing  the  facts  that  he  stayed  at  a  hotel,  he  was  told  to  stay  at  the 
hotel,  he  was  authorized  dual  lodging,  and  he  submitted  all  travel  vouchers  and 
audits  which  were  approved.    Again  to  further  pursue  this  alleged  debt  is  an 
injustice and a result of the error of those involved in this process on behalf of the 
agency.   

  # 

 

 

# 

# 
 
in  January  2004  of  $1,001.51, 

the  alleged  overpayment 

Regarding 
the 
Government  Travel  Rate  was  $1,405.91.    He  only  was  reimbursed  for  $998.01.  
The  advisory  opinion  is  misreading  its  own  documents.    He  did  not  receive 
$1,405.91.  He asked for $998.01.  Had he not used his POV it would have cost 
the  USCG  more  money. 
  Again,  the  USCG  is  trying  to  penalize  the 
servicemember for mistakes made at other levels of bureaucracy when he himself 
saved money for the USCG. . . .   

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis  of the applicant's 

military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission and applicable law: 
 
 
of the United States Code.  The application was timely.  
 

1. The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 

 

 

2.  The applicant is a reservist who served a period of active duty from October 1, 2003 to 
August 30, 2005.   During this period, he was entitled to lodging and daily per diem (meals, and 
incidentals) and when on TDY he was entitled to additional lodging but not additional per diem; 
nor  was  he  entitled  to  per  diem  when  on  annual  leave.    The  Coast  Guard  alleges  that  the 
applicant was overpaid on his travel claims for the period of active duty.  The applicant denies 
that he was overpaid.   
 

3. In June 2005, approximately two months prior to his separation from active duty, the 
Coast Guard notified the applicant that he had been overpaid in the amount of $3,047.95 on his 
travel claims.  The amount of this alleged overpayment would change numerous times after the 
first notification to an amount currently over $7,000.00 after several audits.  
 

4.  The applicant has continually denied that he was overpaid and states that any alleged 
overpayment  resulted  from  his  entitlement  to  double  lodging  during  his  TDY  periods  or  from 
errors made by Coast Guard pay personnel.  To this the Coast Guard responded that the applicant 
was authorized and paid for dual lodging but he was not authorized double per diem.  The Coast 
Guard stated in the advisory opinion that these minor discrepancies with regard to the per diem 
overpayment are not the cause of the applicant’s debt.  The indebtedness, according to the Coast 
Guard advisory opinion, resulted from the applicant’s receipt of double reimbursements for the 
periods from October 1, 2003 to October 31, 2003 and June 1, 2004 to June 30, 2004, as well as 
an  overpayment  for  a  November  2003  TDY  travel  claim  in  which  he  was  reimbursed  for  the 
unauthorized use his private vehicle.   
 

5. As the Coast Guard stated in the advisory opinion, much confusion existed with regard 
to  the  amount  and  source  of  the  alleged  overpayment.    Therefore,  since  the  Coast  Guard’s 
advisory opinion has clarified the source and amount of the applicant’s alleged overpayment, the 
Board  will  address  only  those  amounts  and  sources  of  overpayment  that  are  discussed  in  the 
advisory  opinion.    The  earlier  amounts  and  sources  of  overpayment  are  considered  to  be 
inaccurate  and/or  unreliable.    In  this  regard,  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  a  schedule  of  the 
payments made to the applicant or electronically deposited into his bank account.  The schedule 
of  payments,  as  stated  in  the  advisory  opinion,  shows  payments  for  October  1,  2003  through 
October 30, 2003 in the amounts of $3,047.95 on November, 10, 2003 and $3, 244.60 on January 
20, 2006 and for June 1, 2004 to June 30, 2004 in the amounts of $2,879.25 on July 12, 2004 and 
$2,878.50 on October 24, 2005.  The Coast Guard stated that the applicant was only entitled to 
$3,074.88 for the October 2003 period and to $2,880.00 for the June 2004 period.    
 

6.    According  to  the  advisory  opinion,  the  two  major  overpayments  occurred  after  the 
applicant’s discharge from active duty on August 30, 2005, which is different from the basis of 
the overpayment articulated by the Coast Guard in its earliest notifications to the applicant.   In 
this regard, the schedule of payments submitted by the Coast Guard shows that the October 24, 
2005,  payment  was  through  check  number  377380  and  the  January  20,  2006,  payment  was 
through check number 3235556.  Although the applicant denied that he was overpaid or that he 
received  the  two  payments,  he  did  not  submit  any  evidence  that  the  two  payments  were  not 
deposited  into  his  bank  account.    The  applicant  alleges  that  he  cannot  prove  a  negative.  
However,  the  Board  finds  that  if  these  amounts  were  deposited  into  the  applicant’s  then-bank 
account  as  the  Coast  Guard’s  documentation  shows,  the  applicant  should  be  able  to  obtain 

 

 

documentation  from  his  then-bank  as  to  any  reimbursements  that  were  deposited  during  these 
periods.    
 

7.  Since the Coast Guard was apparently confused about the basis for the overpayment, 
admitted to  calculation errors early on in  the process, identified only  recently  the source of the 
major  overpayment  in  its  advisory  opinion,  and  given  the  applicant’s  repeated  denials  that  he 
received  any  overpayments,  the  Board  will  allow  the  applicant  an  opportunity  to  obtain 
documentation  from  his  then-bank  showing  deposits  into  his  account  on  or  about  the  dates 
identified in Findings 5 and 6 above or to submit any other evidence that establishes whether he 
did  or  did  not  receive  reimbursements  in  October  2005  and  January  2006.        If  such  payments 
were made to the applicant after his discharge from active duty on August 30, 2005, the applicant 
should explain why he believes he was entitled to the January 2006 and October 2005 payments, 
particularly  since  he  stated  that  he  was  filing  monthly  claims.    The  Board  will  grant  further 
reconsideration on this application if within 180 days from the date of this decision the applicant 
submits  to  the  Board  documentation  from  the  bank  involved  showing  deposits  for  November 
2003,  July  2004,  October/November  2005  and  January/February  2006  or  any  other  evidence 
relevant to the issue of the October 2005 and January 2006 alleged overpayments. 
 

8.  To summarize, the  Board  should deny this  application without prejudice and  should 
grant  further  consideration,  if  within  180  days  from  the  date  of  this  decision,  the  applicant 
submits information from his then-bank showing the deposits that were made into his account for 
the months of November 2003, July 2004, October/November 2005, and January/February 2006 
or any other evidence that  establishes his  receipt or non-receipt of the  alleged  payments.    The 
Board will also consider at that time, the issue of whether the applicant was overpaid on his TDY 
claim and the issue of whether he should be granted a waiver of the debt.   

 
9.    The  Board  recommends  that  the  Coast  Guard  cease  debt  collection  activity  until  a 

final decision is issued in this case.   

 
10.  Accordingly, the Board will issue an order in accordance with finding 8 above.   
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 

 

 

 

ORDER 

 

The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX for correction of his military record 
is denied without prejudice.  The Board shall further consider the application if within 180 days 
from  the  date  of  this  decision,  the  applicant  submits  documentation  from  his  bank  showing 
deposits that were made into his account for the months of November 2003, July 2004, October 
and November 2005, and January and February 2006, and any other evidence that establishes his 
receipt or non-receipt of the January 20, 2006 and October 24, 2005 payments.   The Board shall 
also consider whether the applicant was overpaid on his TDY claim for use of his private vehicle 
and whether he should be granted a waiver of the debt when it issues the final decision on further 
consideration.   

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 

 
 Reagan N. Clyne 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer