RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00619
		INDEX NUMBER:  128.10
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

A portion of the indebtedness he has incurred due to being paid Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) to which he was not entitled be forgiven.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not receive copies of his Leave and Earnings Statements (LESs) in a timely manner, which caused him not to realize he was receiving BAH to which he was not entitled.

The error would have been discovered sooner if his servicing finance office had sent out a BAH certification form to verify his housing cost.

He has been repaying the debt for several years at a rate of $505.00 per month.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date is   14 Sep 84.  He is presently serving on active duty in the grade of technical sergeant.  The applicant incurred a debt of $23,177.40 due to the receipt of erroneous payments of BAH and Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA) from 26 Aug 98 through 30 Apr 02.  The applicant’s request for remission of this debt was denied on 16 Sep 02.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

DFAS-POCC/DE recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  On   5 Aug 94, the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) approved a remission for $577.12 on a $1,151.12 erroneous payment of Basic Allowance for Quarters differential (BAQ-Diff).  The applicant was not due the BAQ-Diff because he was living in government family quarters.  This decision put the applicant on notice that he was not due housing allowance while residing in government family quarters.  Therefore, he should have questioned his pay when he moved into family quarters overseas and started receiving BAH and OHA.  Had the applicant questioned his pay within a reasonable amount of time, he would not have incurred such a large debt.

OHA is a monthly allowance paid to members assigned to an overseas permanent duty station authorized to live in private housing.  When personnel are assigned to government family quarters, they are briefed as to what entitlements they will be giving up and sign a contract with the housing office.

The first LES reflecting the applicant’s receipt of OHA was    Feb 99, in the net amount of $998.69.  Given his time in service, the applicant should have questioned such a large increase in his monthly pay and should have contacted his servicing finance office.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation, applicant indicates that he agrees that he should have been more diligent and caught the error with his pay himself.  He states that he is not seeking to play the blame game, but to get the process that caused his problem fixed.

Applicant’s complete response 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 error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, 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.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_______________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-2004-00619 in Executive Session on 29 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Feb 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, DFAS-POCC/DE, dated 8 Mar 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Mar 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Apr 04.