RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00002
							INDEX CODE:  128.02
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL:  NONE

  XXXXXXXXXXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His “Do it Yourself” (DITY) move overpayment debt of $1088.66 be waived.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told he had been overpaid for his DITY move.  The error was made either by the Traffic Management Office (TMO) or the Finance Office. Neither office has been able to explain why or how this discrepancy happened.  He has never received a paid travel voucher so, he was unaware a problem existed.  He is not convinced he owes the money.  

In support of his application, the applicant submits a personnel statement, a copy of his retirement order, copies of his travel vouchers, several copies of Travel Voucher Summaries, and copies of e-mail messages concerning his pay discrepancy.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the military personnel data system (MilPDS), the applicant served 21 years, 8 months and 13 days of active military service.  He was progressively promoted to the rank of technical sergeant (TSgt) effective 1 August 1996.  MILPDS reflects the applicant retired effective 1 November 2002.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

JPPSO-SAT/ECAF recommends denial of the applicant’s waiver request.  In conjunction with his retirement, the applicant made a personally procured movement (PPM) of household goods (HHG) from Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, to Las Vegas, Nevada.  At the time of his application, he estimated the weight of his HHG to be 9,000 pounds.  Based on 9,000 pounds, the estimated gross incentive was determined to be $2,684.70.  The applicant requested and received an advance operating allowance of $1,695.60.  On 11 September 2002, he was paid $2,152.01 ($2,684.70 minus $532.69 federal taxes).  The applicant contacted the TMO to advise them he had been underpaid, as his HHG had weighed more 11,000 pounds.  The applicant’s incentive was refigured on the maximum authorized weight allowance for his grade, 11,000 pounds, and determined to be $3,281.30.  On 20 November 2002, an additional $596.60 of reimbursable expenses was approved.  

When recompiling the applicant’s PPM voucher, retirement voucher and federal tax withholdings, it was discovered he had been overpaid in the amount of $1,088.66.  An overpayment of $16.03 from an earlier TDY, the advance operating allowance of $1,695.60, and the travel advance of $784.05, had not been deducted prior to effecting payment.  When the applicant filed his travel voucher, he failed to list either of his advances, which led to the overpayment.  

The applicant did not provide any information to support he is a victim of an error or injustice.  There are no provisions in policy or law that would entitle the applicant to be paid more than he is entitle to for the movement of household goods or to receive more travel pay than entitled to for the number of miles traveled.  The JPPSO-SAT/ECAF evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that before his retirement date, he was informed he was overpaid $16.03 on a TDY travel voucher with no detailed explanation of what it was.  He contacted the travel pay section and was informed it would be taken out of his pay.  He asked for and received an advance for his DITY move.  He turned in the travel portion of the move but never asked for or received an advance.  After he completed his move, he filed his final travel voucher in person.  TMO assisted him in completing the voucher.  He received the balance from his TMO voucher; however, he never received copies of the advance voucher or of the final payment voucher in the mail.  

When he received the notice that he was overpaid, it was a big surprise.  He contacted his finance office but his questions still remained unclear and unexplained to him.  The finance office advised him that he had the option to file a BCMR application.  The applicant feels finance should have caught any discrepancies with the vouchers while processing them.  He doesn’t feel that he is responsible for providing the burden of proof since he never received official copies of his vouchers and the fact that it wasn’t his mistake.  The applicant’s rebuttal is at Exhibit E. 

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of record, the Board is not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant was properly charged with a debt as a result of an overpayment for transportation of his HHG and travel pay in connection with his retirement.  The overpayment was the result of his failure to list the travel advances he received when he filed his final travel voucher.  The applicant’s assertions concerning the actions of TMO officials and his contention that he did not receive a voucher for the advances are noted.  However, he has provided no evidence showing he did not receive the advance payments and the proper completion of the final voucher was his responsibility.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Accordingly, we find no compelling basis upon which to relieve the applicant of his obligation to reimburse the government for the overpayment.  

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 28 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00002 was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 24 Dec 02.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, JPPSO-SAT/ECAF, dated 14 Feb 03.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Feb 03.
     Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, undated.