PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           23 September 1998                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-10568

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn 		Member	
	Mr. George D. Paxson 		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests reimbursement of $4,221.52 unjustly collected by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS).

3.  The applicant states poor military pay accounting practices by numerous DFAS offices led to the compounding of his pay problems.  DFAS collected money from him without complying with official formal notification procedures.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that after having prior service in the      U. S. Navy, he enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 March 1991 in pay grade E-4. He is currently on active duty as a Sergeant First Class.

5.  The applicant’s finance problems started in December 1992, when he notified the Fort Detrick, MD finance office that his wife was going to file for a divorce.  He would be paying child support.  He was told he would be entitled to basic allowance for quarters (BAQ) at the without dependents rate, plus BAQ-DIFF (differential) due to the court-ordered child support.  In January 1994, when he inquired of the Fort Detrick, MD finance office how his pay would change when he married a service member with children of her own and who was stationed elsewhere, he was told there would be no change.  When he inprocessed at the Fort Dix, NJ finance office, he was told there would be no changes to his BAQ entitlements.  When his wife was reassigned to Fort Dix, NJ and they resided together, they asked finance if any entitlements would change and they were told their pay status was fine.  

6.  In February 1996, DFAS-Indianapolis sent the applicant a BAQ/VHA (variable housing allowance) certification form.  His non-commissioned officer in charge called the DFAS Customer Service Office, explained the applicant’s particular marital/child support status, and was told he had filled out the form correctly and he was drawing the correct entitlements.

7.  In 1997, the applicant was reassigned to the Total Army Personnel Command, Alexandria, VA and his wife was reassigned to Fort Drum, NY.  His wife’s finance office told her their names came up on a report used to determine if soldiers married to other soldiers were drawing the correct entitlements.  Fort Drum told them not to worry about it, it looked like their pay was OK.  The applicant followed up this conversation with a call to DFAS Indianapolis.  They told him he should not have been receiving the BAQ-DIFF entitlement.  He was asked to fax a copy of their marriage certificate and someone would be in touch with him about the actual computation of the indebtedness.  The applicant was told no collection would be started until he was notified in writing first and at that time he could request remission of the indebtedness since it occurred through no fault of his own.

8.  No one from DFAS ever contacted him again and collections were started without his ever receiving official notification of the indebtedness.  

9.  The total indebtedness was $6,581.38.  DFAS had collected $4,221.52 before the Special Actions Branch, Total Army Personnel Command approved his application for remission or cancellation of the remaining $2,359.86.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was told by several different installation finance offices over several years that he was drawing the correct BAQ entitlement.

2.  When DFAS Indianapolis notified him that he had not been drawing the correct entitlement, they failed to notify him in writing of the indebtedness and so offer him a chance to request remission or cancellation of the debt prior to beginning collection of the debt.

3.  The Special Actions Branch, Total Army Personnel Command approved remission or cancellation of a portion of his debt and only failed to remit or cancel the rest of it because it had already been collected.  It was not within their authority to order reimbursement.

4.  In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice 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 reimbursing the applicant $4,221.52, the collected amount of his BAQ overpayment.

BOARD VOTE:  

________  ________  ________  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON