RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 May 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060017274 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. Gerard W. Schwartz Acting Director Mr. Michael L. Engle Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Mr. William F. Crain Chairperson Mr. Donald L. Lewy Member Mr. Roland S. Venable Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests remission or cancellation of his indebtedness to the United States Government in the amount of $2,320.85. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that the debt in question occurred as a result of both the Active Component and the Reserve Component processing pay actions at the time of his mobilization. This resulted in an overpayment. The applicant further states that he was unaware of the overpayment until receipt of the payment. The applicant’s Leave and Earnings Statement dated 15 March 2006 indicated this overpayment. At that time he brought this matter to the attention of the finance at Camp Shelby, Mississippi. He was told that it would be corrected once he arrived at his permanent duty station in Afghanistan. Once there, the applicant took up this matter with the servicing finance officer, who was diligent in seeing this matter through to remission. The applicant further contends that he is not at fault and the decision to remit this debt should be made in favor of the Soldier. The United States Army Finance should take full responsibility for their mistakes. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his request for remission and a letter of support from his team chief. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant, a sergeant major, pay grade E9, at the time of his application, was a Mississippi Army National Guard Soldier, mobilized for duty in Afghanistan. 2. On 27 February 2006, the applicant was mobilized. At the same time, his military payroll accountability was transferred from the Active Guard/Reserve to the Reserve Component. During this transition the applicant was paid by both components, resulting in an overpayment of $1,262.05 in pay and allowances, and $1.058.80 in leave, totaling $2,320.85. 3. On 15 October 2006, the applicant submitted an Application for Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness to the United States Army Human Resources Command, 1 Reserve Way, St. Louis, Missouri, requesting that this debt be remitted on the basis of injustice. The applicant acknowledged in his request that he had been notified of the debt on 26 March 2006. 4. On 1 November 2006, the Chief, Reserve Pay Support Branch, Human Resources Command, 1 Reserve Way, St. Louis, Missouri, disapproved the applicant’s request for remission or cancellation of this debt. 5. On 19 November 2006, the applicant’s commander responded by memorandum to the applicant’s disapproved request for remission or cancellation of his debt. The commander stated that it is regrettable that the Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) and the offices involved in this case cannot take responsibility for mistakes by their personnel. He further stated that the situation and burden to rectify the indebtedness should not rest with the Soldier but instead with those who made the error. 6. Army Regulation 600-4 (Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness for Enlisted Members) provides, in pertinent part, that the Secretary of the Army may remit or cancel a Soldier's unpaid debts to the United States Army, or its instrumentalities, before or at the time of his or her honorable discharge if such action is in the best interests of the United States. The objective is to remit or cancel debts to the U.S. Army that are considered to be unjust and/or cause hardship or undue suffering. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The evidence clearly shows that the applicant was overpaid and that he knew almost immediately that he had received excess pay and allowances. Furthermore, it is equally clear that the applicant bears no blame for this overpayment. 2. However, it is not clear, how this finance error has caused the applicant an injustice. He received too much money due to the overpayment. He immediately realized what had happened, and should have fully expected that he would be required to give it back to finance. His pending move to Afghanistan does nothing to change these facts, or to create an injustice. 3. The applicant has not provided any mitigating argument or evidence to show how he was injured by receiving this extra money. Perhaps if the applicant were a young Soldier and not familiar with Army personnel and finance systems, he might have spent the extra money and thus created for himself a hardship. But in this case, the applicant is a sergeant major with many years of experience. This is a Soldier who is expected to know that he cannot keep more than is his just due. 4. The errors made by DFAS in this case are regrettable, and it is hoped that those responsible have learned from them. However, taking responsibility does not mean failing to correct the error. A part of that correction is the retrieval of improperly disbursed funds. 5. In view of the above, the applicant’s request should not be granted. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __RSV __ __DLL___ __WFC _ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. __ William F. Crain_________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060017274 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070531 TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE OF DISCHARGE DISCHARGE AUTHORITY . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 128. 1000 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.