2.  The applicant requests that his indebtedness to the U.S. Government, due to an erroneous payment of his reenlistment bonus, be canceled.

3.  The applicant’s military records show that he was born on 15 March 1972.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 June 1990 for 5 years.  He later extended for 7 months.  On 21 July 1995, he reenlisted for 3 years and received a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB).

4.  At the time of his reenlistment, his reenlistment non-commissioned officer (NCO) told the applicant he would receive a payment of half of the bonus “up front” and the other half a year later on the anniversary date of his reenlistment but could not explain how finance figured the bonus.

5. On 1 February 1996, the applicant received his first SRB payment of $3,816.00.  At this time he was deployed to Bosnia and was unable to find out if he was receiving the correct payment.  He asked his chain of command and they informed him that it was the correct amount, so he did not follow up on it any more.  Prior to deploying, he had asked his finance personnel how the payment was figured, but they also were apparently deploying and no one was available to explain it to him.  All finance told him was that it was “a system-generated process.”

6.  On 1 August 1996, the applicant received a second payment of $3,816.00.

7.  The applicant’s 1 December 1996 Leave and Earnings Statement (LES) showed a payment of $5,724.00 but also showed a deduction of $5,724.00.  The applicant asked his platoon sergeant if he knew what this could be, and his platoon sergeant told him it looked like finance paid him an SRB payment in error but took it right back out.

8.  On 17 December 1996, the applicant received a letter stating that he owed the government $5,724.00.  He and his first sergeant then went to finance for an explanation, and there he was told he had been overpaid on his SRB. 

9.  Apparently, the applicant’s total SRB should have been $2,544.00.  He should have received an initial payment of $1,272.00, a first increment payment of $636.00 on the first anniversary of his reenlistment and a second increment payment of $636.00 on the second anniversary.  As he was actually paid a total of $7,632.00, he was overpaid by $5,724.00.  Apparently erroneous information input into the database caused the overpayments.

10.  On 12 February 1997, the applicant applied for a remission or cancellation of indebtedness.  On 9 June 1997, his application for remission or cancellation was approved in a partial amount of $2,862.00 and he was advised to apply to this Board if he still felt an injustice had occurred.

11.  On 25 September 1997, the applicant turned his application for correction of his records in to his finance office.  On 26 September 1997, his finance office sent it to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service - Denver, (DFAS-DE).  On 30 April 1998, the applicant learned that DFAS-DE lost his application and learned it should not have been sent there in the first place. 

12.  On 15 May 1998, information was obtained that due to another miscalculation, the applicant’s debt should be reduced by a further $530.00, making a total debt of $2,332.00.

13.  The applicant’s expiration term of service (ETS) is 20 July 1998.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence in the records shows that the applicant attempted to get information as to how much and when his SRB payments would be but was unable to obtain that information.

2.  Through no fault of his own, his chain of command gave him erroneous information when he brought up questions he had either about his actual SRB payments or about information shown on his LES.

3.  Through no fault of his own, his finance and accounting office misrouted his application that should have come to this Board, causing it to finally arrive at this Board less than three months prior to his ETS.

4.  While half of his original debt has already been remitted or canceled, there is too little time left until his ETS to require the applicant to pay back the total amount remaining on his debt without creating a hardship on him and his family.

4.  In view of the foregoing, it would be just to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the remaining debt charged against him for overpayment of his SRB is canceled.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

                                                                                                               
						    CHAIRPERSON