BOARD DATE: 14 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014496 BOARD VOTE: ___x______ ___x____ ___x__ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 14 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014496 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army and State Army National Guard records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing recoupment of debt based on an erroneous payment of a Reenlistment/Extension Bonus has been cancelled and returning to him any monies that have been recouped. ___________x_____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. BOARD DATE: 14 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014496 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests relief from the recoupment of his Reenlistment/Extension Bonus (REB) in the amount of $15,000. If the debt cannot be forgiven, he requests a settlement of $6,000. 2. The applicant states he was unaware that a bonus was processed on his behalf. Several years passed before he was notified of the error. He has worked diligently to try to correct this situation with no relief. He is being asked to pay the full amount of bonus when half had already been taken in taxes. To his knowledge, the people responsible for this fraud have been punished and ordered to pay restitution. He desires to have his credit returned to good standing. 3. He explains in a chronological timeline the basis for his request concerning an REB he erroneously received while a member in good standing in the California Army National Guard (CAARNG): a. In February 2004, he requested placement on inactive status while assigned to Company A, 1st Battalion, 140th Aviation Regiment, 40th Infantry Division, Los Alamitos, CA. At that time, he was on probationary status as a result of beginning a new career and attending the Border Patrol Academy out of state. During this period, his unit reassigned him to Company A, 640th Aviation Support Battalion, 40th Infantry Division, Los Alamitos, CA, because his unit had deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. b. In February 2005, he received notification that he had been discharged from the ARNG due to absences from drill. He contacted his unit and discovered that his paperwork fell through the cracks because of deployment. He met with his Commander and First Sergeant (1SG) to correct this problem. Subsequently, he was reinstated to the ARNG and all orders related to his discharge were revoked. During this process, he did not receive a pay check for drill attendance. c. In July 2005, his unit's reenlistment noncommissioned officer (NCO) informed him that there was a bonus for his military occupational specialty (MOS). He told his retention NCO that he was not reenlisting. No further conversations between them occurred concerning reenlistment. d. In August 2005, he attended his last drill as a member of the CAARNG. The ARNG still owes him money for drill attendance. e. In September 2005, he received two (2) direct deposits of approximately $3,750 each. He called his unit to inquire if this was his back pay for drill and he was informed that the money was most likely back pay. f. In November 2013, he received a letter via certified mail from the CAARNG Incentives Task Force (ITF) informing him that he had fraudulently received an REB in the amount of $15,000 in September 2005. He contacted the ITF to find out what was the basis for this claim since he had been out of the CAARNG for almost 9 years. He was informed that because he had not fulfilled his reenlistment contract, he would be required to return all $15,000. He told Staff Sergeant (SSG) Sxxxxxx that at no time during his enlistment had he requested or intended to reenlist when his term was expired. He asked for copies of all documentation that the ITF was using as a basis for this claim in order to get to the bottom of the situation to clear his name and military record. g. In February 2014, he reviewed the documentation provided by the ITF. He was shocked and angry that all the control measures to prevent such a grievous error from occurring were overridden in the system. He researched and found out that several Soldiers were involved in nefarious activities and had been convicted of crimes related to this situation. He was also aware that some of these Soldiers received kick-backs from the very Soldiers who were ineligible for REBs. He understood that these ineligible bonuses totaled in the millions of dollars. As a taxpayer, he was disgusted at this gross lack of accountability and managerial oversight. h. In February 2014, a letter he received from the Soldier Incentives Assistance Center (SIAC) advised him to contact legal assistance. As a result, he was put in contact with Sergeant (SGT) Lx to inquire how to best handle this situation he was thrust into through no fault of his own. He was informed that there were three options normally used to clear this issue: (1) exception to policy, (2) request to pay a reduced amount, or (3) request a correction of his military record. i. In February 2014, he requested to pay a reduced amount due to the fact that the money he received was only $7,500 due to half of the money being taken out in taxes. He waited to hear if his request was accepted. j. In March 2014, he received a notice from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) instructing him to pay $1,500. He was relieved to hear that his request to pay a lesser amount had been accepted. He paid the full amount and received notice from DFAS that his account had been paid in full. k. In December 2014, he received a notice from DFAS instructing him to pay $13,500. He thought this was a mistake, so he sent a letter to DFAS with copies of his March 2014 payment notice asking them to correct and update their record. l. In February 2015, he received a reply from DFAS stating the debt was valid and had now been increased to $13,532.96 due to interest. He immediately called DFAS and was informed that the previous collection of $1,500 was cleared but they had received another request from the State of California to collect the remaining $13,500. He explained to DFAS that he had requested to pay a lesser amount in February 2014. He assumed that his request had been approved based on the notice he received from DFAS to pay $1,500. DFAS informed him that they could not lower the amount because they were not the owner of the debt, but they were tasked with collecting it. He asked them who owned the debt and how he could contact them. DFAS gave him the phone number to the California Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) for further assistance. m. In March 2015, he called the SJA and spoke with SSG Rxxxxx. He explained the situation to him and expressed how frustrated and anxious he was to get this issue resolved. SSG Rxxxxx asked him to email him his correspondence with DFAS and supporting payment notices so he could forward it up the chain. He complied with his request. About a week later, he had not received an email from SSG Rxxxxx so he sent him follow-up emails and left several voice messages for him. None of his emails or phone calls were returned. n. In April 2015, he received a notice from Department of Treasury informing him that the debt was beginning to accrue interest and fees in the amount of $17,351.12. o. In May 2015, he contacted DFAS and told them the difficulty he was having trying to get this issue resolved. DFAS told him that there was nothing they could do and again referred him to the SJA. This time when he called the SJA, he was connected to Colonel (COL) Pxxxxxxx. From his research, he knew that he was actively involved with the ITF. He was very relieved to speak with COL Pxxxxxxx because he felt that this nightmare would soon come to an end. COL Pxxxxxxx asked him to send all the documents related to his case to him via email and to expect SSG Rxxxxx to contact him in a few days. Another week passed with no contact from SSG Rxxxxx or COL Pxxxxxxx. He sent emails and left voice messages with no reply. p. In May 2015, he contacted his Congresswoman's local office for assistance because he was not getting responses from the SJA. He met with a member of his Congresswoman's staff and provided him copies of all documents. He submitted a Congressional inquiry to the State of California. q. In May 2015, he called the Department of the Treasury and was informed that his debt had been referred to them from DFAS for collection. He told them that he was in the process of getting this debt cleared and asked them what he could do to put a hold on any action. He was instructed to submit a letter and all documents related to his case. They said upon receipt they would forward it to DFAS and DFAS should send it to the State of California since they were the ones who requested the collection. He sent Treasury all documents as requested. r. In June 2015, he received notification from DFAS that the debt was valid and had been turned over to the Department of Treasury for collection. DFAS told him again to contact SJA. He also received a letter from his Congresswoman's office stating their findings from the Congressional inquiry. The letter described his story from the beginning except that after his payment of $1,500 was accepted, an audit of his account showed $13,500 was still outstanding. The DFAS request for $1,500 was a mistake and should have been $15,000. Upon learning of this major mistake, he was distraught. He had been working faithfully and diligently for the past 8 months to resolve an issue that was once again the result of someone's mistake. The letter he received from the inquiry stated that he should contact the legal assistance office, which is the same office he had been trying to work with since March 2015. s. In July 2015, he received another copy of the finding from DFAS saying the debt was valid as a result of the inquiry. t. In August 2015, he met with his Congresswoman's staff again for assistance. They advised him to submit an application to correct his military record. The letter from the Congressional inquiry advised him that if he had any questions or need of assistance he should contact the SJA. He reached SSG Rxxxxx in the legal assistance office who reviewed the facts of his case. SSG Rxxxxx was surprised that his case had not yet been dealt with and he forwarded all information to COL Pxxxxxxx. SSG Rxxxxx told him to email him in a few minutes and he did. SSG Rxxxxx also told him that since he was no longer in the military that they could not be of service to him. SSG Rxxxxx sent him an email a few days later stating there was nothing they could do and that he would need to apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). u. In August 2015, he got his personal credit report and saw that his account had negative information on it and the debt had been turned over to a private collection agency. He contacted the Department of Treasury to find out what he could do about this lingering debt. Treasury told him the debt had been turned over to a private collection agency, Pioneer Recovery Accounts. He called the collection agency to find out what his options were since his credit report now showed a debt in collection, thus destroying the credit rating he and his wife worked so hard to build and maintain. He is currently working to set up a payment plan to begin paying this debt that he strongly believes should be forgiven for the following reasons: * this whole situation has put an enormous strain on his wife who is recovering from cancer * this debt has the potential to destroy his career as a federal agent because it could impact his background investigations and security clearance * he did not fraudulently obtain a reenlistment bonus * he did not intend nor did he convey a desire to reenlist * his unit's reenlistment NCO criminally submitted a request for a bonus without a reenlistment contract * the safeguards in place to prevent such an occurrence were overridden and ignored * the person responsible for approving the payment (Master Sergeant Jxxxx) was convicted of this crime, sentenced to prison, and ordered to pay restitution * the payment of $1,500 was paid in good faith with the understanding that his request to pay a lesser amount had been accepted * he did not receive $15,000 because half of it was sent to the federal government for taxes * half of the money the government is trying to collect from him has been in their possession since September 2005 v. If the debt cannot be forgiven, he requests the following settlement of $6,000 based on his calculations as follows: $15,000 Total Bonus – 7,500 Taxes 7,500 Amount Received – 1,500 Payment to settle debt in March 2014 $ 6,000 Outstanding Balance 3. The applicant provides: * self-authored statements * two articles from The Sacramento Bee, dated 10 October 2010 and 20 August 2011 * memorandum, subject: Incentive Notice of Indebtedness (NOI): Out-of-Service Personnel, dated 30 January 2014 * email CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. After completing prior service in the U.S. Army Reserve and Regular Army, the applicant enlisted in the California Army National Guard (CAARNG) on 20 August 2000 for a period of 1 year. 3. On 18 August 2001, he voluntarily extended his enlistment agreement of 20 August 2000 for a period of 1 year. His new expiration term of service (ETS) was established as 19 August 2002. His record does not contain additional extension or reenlistment contracts. However, he continued to serve through 19 August 2005, indicating he executed an additional extension and/or reenlistment. 4. His service record does not contain a National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 600-7-3-R-E (Annex R to DD Form 4 or DA Form 4836 (Oath of Extension of Enlistment or Reenlistment) REB Addendum - ARNG of the United States) that shows he requested a 6-year extension for an REB in the amount of $15,000. 5. His record contains conflicting information regarding his discharge: a. A National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) showing he was discharged from the CAARNG under honorable conditions (general) as an unsatisfactory participant on 1 January 2005. This form does not appear to reflect the actual final disposition of the applicant. b. Orders Number 270-1206 published on 27 September 2005 by Joint Forces Headquarters, CAARNG, Sacramento, CA, honorably discharged him from the ARNG and as a Reserve of the Army effective 19 August 2005. These orders appear to provide an accurate description of his final disposition. 6. He provided two articles, dated 10 October 2010 and 20 August 2011 from the Sacramento Bee that reported on a criminal investigation of alleged fraud of the CAARNG incentives program. The article stated that Guard officials improperly paid out money to Soldiers with "fabricated paperwork." 7. He provided an email transmission he sent to the CAARNG ITF, dated 21 November 2013, wherein he states he was sending the email to follow up on a voicemail message he left on 20 November 2013 concerning a letter he received. He requested the ITF send him copies of all documentation related to his case. He was attempting to resolve the matter as expeditiously as possible before the information went through debt collection. 8. He provided an email he received from the CAARNG ITF, dated 25 November 2013, wherein a customer service representative at the Soldiers Incentives Assistance Center informed the applicant that he extended for a 6-year reenlistment bonus of $15,000. He was paid $7,500 minus taxes on 7 September 2005 and on 9 September 2005. a. He did not have a bonus addendum on file, which violates Title 37, U.S. Code, section 331(d). b. He did not serve any time on the REB contract and was, therefore, not eligible for payments prior to his discharge effective 19 August 2005, which violates Department of Defense Instruction 1205.21, section 6.2. c. He could file a claim with the ABCMR. Once he received his NOI from the U.S. Property and Fiscal Officer (USFPO), he would then have a complete ABCMR claim packet. 9. He provided an email to SSG Sxxxxxx, CAARNG ITF, dated 16 December 2013, wherein he stated, per SSG Sxxxxxx's request; he forwarded him the email he received after speaking to someone at the ITF the month prior. 10. He provided a memorandum, dated 30 January 2014, from an official of the NGB USPFO for California, who informed the applicant of his indebtedness to the U.S. Government. The debt was listed as an REB in the amount of $15,000. The official stated the amount was subject to recoupment. The official informed the applicant that since he was separated from the CAARNG, the USPFO for California would refer the debt to DFAS for collection in accordance with the Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (DODFMR), Volume 5, Chapter 28, Management and Collection of Individual Debt. a. The official advised him of the following rights: * Receive a copy government records related to debt * Appeal the validity, the amount, or the liability for the debt * Request a correction of his records through ABCMR * Seek a waiver of the debt if there is no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, fault, or lack of good faith. * Seek remission of the debt, if the debt was incurred while on active duty or on active status and if otherwise appropriate b. He was also advised that the CAARNG Legal Assistance Office could refer him to sources of legal assistance available to former CAARNG members. 11. He provided an email her received from SGT Lx, a CAARNG Paralegal Specialist, on 19 February 2014, wherein SGT Lx stated: a. Per her conversation with the applicant, the next step in the process was for the applicant to apply for a waiver through DFAS. She asked him to fill out an attached DD From 2789 (Remission/Waiver of Indebtedness Application) to the best of his ability, provide a statement of the facts describing the circumstances of his incentives, and provide other documents that may help his case. b. She told him that in order to file a hardship request to reduce his debt through USPFO, he needed to fill out every section of a DA Form 3508 (Application for Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness) and send the form to SSG Sxxxxxx. Until then it was crucial that he made his payments so that his credit score would not be affected. 12. He provided an email, subject: CAARNG Reenlistment Bonus Alleged Debt, that he sent to SGT Rxxxxx on 2 March 2014. The applicant states he attached the documents SGT Rxxxxx requested during their conversation that morning. 13. He provided an automated confirmation email from DFAS, dated 8 March 2014. The email shows that the applicant paid DFAS $1,500. 14. He provided a copy of his Account Statement for the billing date of 4 April 2014. This statement listed his previous balance as "1,500," payments received as "1,500," and new account balance as "0.00." The remarks section of the statement included the entry "YOUR ACCOUNT IS NOW PAID IN FULL. THANK YOU." 15. He provided a letter, dated 16 December 2014, from DFAS that informed him this office was responsible for collection of his debt. DFAS provided him an account statement that explained the reason for the debt and he was informed of options for payment. The letter indicated that if he was financially unable to make full payment, he could make monthly installments. The minimum acceptable installment amount was the "PAYMENT DUE" on his account statement. He was given 30 days to provide a payment. 16. He provided a copy of his Account Statement for the billing date of 16 December 2014. This statement listed his previous balance as "0.00," less payments received as "1,500.00," and total balance due as "13,500.00." The remarks section stated that the debt was due to recoupment of the unearned portion of his Reserve or National Guard bonus. 17. He provided a personal letter, dated 18 December 2014, in which he referred to a statement he received from DFAS on 4 April 2014. He stated that the DFAS statement indicated his payment of $1,500 was received as total settlement as demonstrated in the remarks section, "Your account is now paid in full." He requested DFAS update their records to show his account was closed on 4 April 2014. 18. He provided a letter, dated 14 February 2015, from DFAS informing him that his bonus debt in the amount of $13,500 remained valid. DFAS also informed him that they reviewed his account and determined his previous bonus debt in the amount of $1,500 was paid in full. 19. He provided a copy of his Account Statement for the billing date of 17 February 2015. This statement listed his previous balance as "13,521.30," less payments received as "0.00," current month interest charged as "11.66," and total balance due as "13,532.96." The remarks section included two statements that indicated his debt was due to recoupment of the unearned portion of his Reserve or National Guard bonus. 20. He provided a letter, dated 17 February 2015, from DFAS informing him again about his debt owed to the U.S. Government. DFAS stated his debt had been referred to the DFAS Debt Collection Management Office for collection. Although they previously notified him of a debt, they had not received a payment. DFAS stated this was his final notice on his delinquent debt. 21. He provided an email that SSG Rxxxxx, the CAARNG Paralegal NCO sent to COL PXXXXXXX, on 9 March 2015, which states, "Sir, This doesn't seem to make any sense. This formal natl. guard member received a letter showing that he owed $1,500 for recoupment out of $15,000. He paid it, and they responded saying the amount was 'paid in full.' Then he gets another letter showing he owes the remaining 13,500. Not sure if this is a mistake or not." 22. He provided three emails he sent to SSG Rxxxxx, dated 12 March – 30 March 2015, which show, in effect, he was attempting to contact SSG Rxxxxx, per his instruction because he had not heard back from him in 48 hours. He called SSG Rxxxxx and got his outgoing message. The applicant stated he would attempt to contact SSG Rxxxxx again. The applicant was unsuccessful in reaching SSG Rxxxxx and SSG Rxxxxx did not respond to the applicant's attempts to make contact. 23. He provided a letter, dated 28 April 2015, from the Department of the Treasury informing him that his delinquent debt had been referred to their agency for collection. The debt he owed at that time was listed as $13,555.56. He was given 10 days from the date of the letter to make payment and amount owed was $17,351.12, which included all applicable fees, interest, and penalties. 24. He provided an email he sent to SSG Rxxxxx on 11 May 2015, which states: a. He received a letter from the Department of Treasury for collection of the REB plus interest and processing fees $17,351.12. This debt was referred to them by DFAS for collection. b. He spoke with COL Pxxxxxxxx on 6 May who informed him that he was going to refer this information to SSG Rxxxxx and he should expect an email or phone call. COL Pxxxxxxxx then instructed him to contact the Department of the Treasury about putting a hold on the collection process. c. He contacted the Department of the Treasury and they informed him that the only way to put a hold on collections being sent to a private collection agency is for him to submit a Debtor Dispute form and include all relevant data. The Department of the Treasury stated they would forward the dispute form back to DFAS which in turn would refer it back to California. 25. He provided a letter dated 16 June 2015 from COL Bxxxxx, California State Military Reserve, Director, Office of Government Affairs, addressed to a Congresswoman in Ontario, CA. COL Bxxxxx informed the Congresswoman of the following: a. Information provided by CAARNG Headquarters staff indicates that due to previous erroneous payments that have been made to many CAARNG Soldiers, the Adjutant General for the California National Guard created the SIAC [formerly known as the Incentives Task Force] to audit and settle all incentive (loan repayment and bonus) payments made between 2004 through approximately 2010. This included initiating recoupment for those payments made erroneously, and if it were under their authority to do so, assisting Soldiers with correcting their incentive contracts or with submitting requests for exception, appeal, waiver and remission, if needed. b. In the applicant's case, the SIAC performed an audit on his bonus incentive on 27 August 2013 and determined the following: (1) The applicant received a $15,000 REB for a 6-year commitment with the CAARNG with an effective start date of 20 August 2005. (2) The SIAC was unable to locate a copy of a signed written agreement in the applicant's official military record to validate his receipt of the $15,000 (he received two payments in the amount of $7,500 each, on 7 September 2005 and 9 September 2005). (3) The applicant did not serve one day of the 6-year reenlistment agreement. He was separated on his original ETS date of 29 August 2005 (sic). Therefore, the $15,000 REB that he received is considered erroneous. c. An official notification of the audit results was mailed to the applicant's home of record on 21 October 2013. d. In November 2013, the applicant contacted the SIAC and the USPFO for the State of California regarding the debt. He was advised that he should contact the Legal Assistance Office to obtain assistance with filing a claim with the ABCMR. e. The SIAC subsequently certified the applicant's out of service debt in the amount of $15,000 and sent it to the USPFO for processing on 7 January 2014. f. On 9 March 2015, the SIAC received an email from Legal Assistance Office asking them to validate the $15,000 debt since DFAS had collected $1,500 from the applicant and then subsequently adjusted the debt to collect the remaining $13,500. g. The SIAC contacted DFAS to obtain clarification of the applicant's debt. According to the information the SIAC was provided by DFAS, they were told that the original debt that DFAS sent out to the applicant was incorrect; it went out for $1,500. The applicant paid the debt in full and received a letter dated 4 April 2014 stating that his debt for $1,500.00 was paid in full. However, when the DFAS completed an audit on the applicant's account, it was discovered that he actually owed $15,000, instead of $1,500. An adjustment was made in the amount of $13,500 and a notice was sent to the applicant on 16 December 2014 with a due date of 16 January 2015. h. In essence, the applicant still owes for the recoupment of his bonus debt. 26. He provided two letters, dated 22 and 23 June 2015, from DFAS responding to his inquiry disputing his indebtedness with the DOD. DFAS informed him that his debt in the amount of $15,000 remained valid. Their office added interest and administrative fees totaling $55.56. The Treasury Offset Program (TOP) collected amounts, which totaled $1,500, brought his balance to $13,555.56. DFAS also informed him that since his account was at a private collection agency, they may have added additional fees in accordance with the contract with the Department of the Treasury. 27. He provided an undated letter addressed to the Department of the Treasury in which he states: a. He provided all documentation concerning the REB that he had in his possession. He diligently worked hard to resolve this issue by contacting the SJA's Office in California and talking to SSG Rxxxxx and COL Pxxxxxx about this issue. Through no fault of his own, he was in the middle of this fraud against the State of California and the federal government. His former unit claimed the money he received in 2005 was back pay with interest. He had no idea that the payment he received after his expiration of term of service in the CAARNG was the result of his unit's Reenlistment NCO processing a bonus without a re-enlistment contract. He specifically told the NCO that he was not willing nor did he have the slightest intent to re-enlist. b. He first learned of this issue when he received a letter sometime in 2013/2014 informing him that he received a bonus that he was not eligible to receive. He made phone calls, provided information, and believed that a settlement had been reached for $1,500. He paid the amount in full. Eight or nine months later he received another statement informing him that he still owed $13,500. He immediately contacted DFAS and was informed that they are the collecting entity and he needed to contact California. DFAS provided him with the phone number to the Staff Judge Advocate Office. c. He spoke with SSG Rxxxxxx and provided him with copies of the documentation. He forwarded the information up his chain of command so he could determine the best course of action. In the meantime, He received another statement from DFAS which included additional interest along with the remaining $13,500. He again attempted to telephone and email SSG Rxxxxxx without getting a reply. In May 2015, he received a letter from the Department of Treasury informing him that he now owed $17,351.12. d. He called Treasury on numerous occasions but the automated system kept telling him, "All representative were busy and to try my call again later." Once again, he attempted to contact SSG Rxxxxxx via telephone and email without getting a reply. He called the SJA's main phone number and was connected to COL Pxxxxxxxx. He explained to COL Pxxxxxxx all the steps he took to resolve this issue. COL Pxxxxxxxx instructed him to continue to try and contact Treasury while his staff looked into his case. e. He does not know how to resolve this issue or what steps to take to clear his record. He knows he cannot pay over $17,000 for a bonus that should have never been processed. This debt hanging over his family's head puts undue stress on his wife who is recovering from cancer. He was a good Soldier and he feels as if he is somehow part of this conspiracy to defraud the government. He also feels the re-enlistment NCO who processed this bonus should be held accountable for her actions. He is having a hard time putting into words how frustrated and angry he is over this whole issue. For his family's peace of mind, he just needs to get this issue resolved. 28. He provided a letter from the Department of the Treasury dated 25 June 2015 replying to his debt dispute. The letter stated the debt is valid and collection should continue. 29. He provided a collection notice from the Department of Defense showing his debt as $13,555 as of July 2015. 30. He provided a letter dated 11 August 2015 from Pioneer Credit Recovery, Incorporated, informing him that his delinquent debt had been placed with their agency and they listed the balance due as $17,351.12. 31. He provided an email transmission he received from SSG Rxxxxx on 12 August 2015 informing him to complete a form and forward it to DFAS. 32. He provided an email transmission he sent to SSG Rxxxxx on 13 August 2013 informing him that he called him, but he was unavailable. He indicated he left SSG Rxxxxx a voice mail. REFERENCES: 1. National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-7 (Selected Reserve Incentive Program (SRIP)) prescribes policies and procedures for the administration of the ARNG of the United States incentive programs and is used for the SRIP, which includes enlistment bonus, reenlistment/extension bonus, affiliation bonus, Student Loan Repayment Program, and the civilian acquired skills program. 2. NGR 600-7, paragraph 2-13 states that under the provisions of Title 32, U.S. Code, Section 308b, an enlisted member of the Selected Reserve (SELRES) who has completed less than 20 years of total military service and who voluntarily reenlists or extends in a designation skill or unit for at least 3 years may be paid an REB the day after their current scheduled ETS. Any portion of a term of reenlistment or extension of enlistment of a member that, when added to the total years of service of the member at the time of discharge or release exceeds 24 years may not be used in computing the total incentive amount. Soldier reenlisting or extending for this incentive must execute a written agreement to serve as an enlisted member in the SELRES and meet the eligibility criteria in accordance with governing law, Department of Defense Instruction, Department of the Army, ARNG regulations or as outlined in the current Fiscal Year SRIP policy. 3. Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation, Volume 7A, Chapter 2, states in paragraph 0201, a member of the uniformed services who enters into a written agreement with specified service conditions for receipt of a bonus, special or incentive pay, educational benefits, stipend, or similar payment (hereinafter referred to as "pay or benefit"), is entitled to the full amount of the pay or benefit if the member fulfills the required conditions. If the member fails to fulfill the service conditions specified in the written agreement for the pay or benefit, then the pay or benefit may be terminated, and the member may be required to repay an amount equal to the unearned portion of the pay or benefit. Such repayment will be pursued unless the member's failure to fulfill specified service conditions is due to circumstances determined reasonably beyond the member's control. Conditions under which repayment will not be sought are set forth in section 0203. DISCUSSION: 1. Orders published on 27 September 2005 discharged the applicant from the ARNG and as a Reserve of the Army on 19 August 2005. The evidence shows that, after he had been discharged, he received payments of $7,500 (less taxes) on 7 September 2005 and 9 September 2005. He states he did not intend to reenlist and these payments were processed erroneously. 2. The applicant contends that he was unaware that a bonus was processed on his behalf. He states he became aware of the payments in September 2005, and when he inquired if the payments were for drills, he was informed the money was most likely back pay. 3. Following an audit of his records, the CAARNG ITF determined he had not performed any service that warranted payment of a $15,000 REB. It has now been more than 10 years since the applicant received payment. 4. In February 2014, DFAS informed the applicant that his bonus debt of $1,500 was paid in full. It was later established that an error had been made and the full amount due was $15,000, not $1,500. His military pay records were adjusted to show he owed a remaining balance of $13,500. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150014496 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150014496 15 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2