RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02833 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His indebtedness in the amount of $18,705.94 be reduced to $5,178.94. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Comptroller Squadron (CPTS) advised him in an email that he would owe $5,178.94 if he separated from active duty and applied for Palace Chase into the Georgia Air National Guard (GA ANG). He had no reason to believe the information was inaccurate. When he discovered the error, he had already separated from active duty and it was too late to negate the unjust debt. He separated expecting the recoupment for the unearned Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) to be in the amount of $5,178.94. He does not deny signing separation documents that the unearned portion of his SRB would be recouped; however, he signed the documents after consulting with finance that he would be required to repay $5,178.94. If he had been informed the SRB recoupment amount would have been $18,705.94, he would not have separated and joined the ANG due to the extreme financial burden it would have placed on his family, a situation he now finds himself in. The debt amount of $18,705.94 is unjust and outside of fairness, equity and good conscious. He has exhausted all other administrative remedies. In support of his request, the applicant provides a letter from the CPTS dated 14 January 2014, stating in part that he relied on a debt computation provided by their office in his decision to separate from active duty. He also provides a letter from his commander dated 16 January 2014, stating his decision to join the ANG was based on the information he received from the CPTS. The applicant also provides copies of the Debt Remission Board package, an e-mail dated 30 January 2012, from the CPTS stating the following computations would apply if he separated on that date: Bonus amount of $54,675.00, paid amount of $43,740.00, forfeited amount of $10,935.00 and a total amount owed as 5,178.94. The applicant also provides various other documents associated with his request. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 8 February 2005, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force and served 7 years, 3 months and 9 days on active duty. On 16 May 2012, he was transferred to the GA ANG. He is currently serving in the grade of Master Sergeant (MSgt, E-7) in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR). The applicant’s DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States, reflects he reenlisted on 12 January 2009 for six years with a Zone A, Multiple 4.5 SRB. In a letter dated 27 December 2013, the Debt Remission Board denied the applicant’s request for remission of indebtedness in the amount of $18,705.94. Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 9837, the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force determined that remission was not in the best interest of the United States. The applicant was advised a collection rate in the amount of $445.38 per month would be in effect until the debt is paid in full. In a letter dated 25 February 2014, SAF/MRB denied the applicant’s appeal for partial remission of his debt in the amount of $13,527.00 (difference between $18,705.94 and $5,178.94) as a result of the SRB overpayment. The letter states that it was not reasonable for the applicant to believe that after serving approximately 56 percent of his SRB obligation that he would be authorized to keep over 90 percent ($49,207.50 of $54,675.00) of the total SRB entitlement. The letter also stated the applicant should have determined the dollar figure provided to him was erroneous and since he completed 1,205 of the 2,160 days, he earned $30,501.56, which is the pro rata share of the total SRB entitlement. He was paid a total of $49,207.50 in SRB but only earned $30,501.56. Therefore, the applicant owes the government the difference of $18,705.94. According to a printout provided by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), the applicant’s military pay records reflect he was paid (before taxes) $27,337.50 at the time of his reenlistment (12 January 2009) and $5,467.50 on the anniversary of his reenlistment in FY10 (Jan 10), FY11 (Jan 11), FY 12 (Jan 12) and FY13 (Jan 13) for a total of $49,207.50. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. The applicant signed AF Form 2631, Palace Chase Statement of Understanding/Contract, on 2 February 2012. Item G states “If I have been paid a bonus, I will be required to repay the unearned portion of the bonus prior to my separation from active duty.” AFI 36-3205, Palace Chase Program, states that any unserved portion of bonuses, tuition assistance or scholarships will be repaid as required. Additionally, airmen are subject to recoupment under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 2005, 37 U.S.C. § 303a(e) and AFI 36- 2605. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He signed the AF Form 2631 after the CPTS provided him with a debt recoupment amount of $5,178.94. The Air Force evaluation did not acknowledge that the CPTS admitted their negligence in providing him with the incorrect information. It was after thoughtful review of the information provided by CPTS that he initialed the AF Form 2631, Item G on 2 February 2012, not the amount of $18,705.94. The CPTS had an obligation to provide him with accurate information and was negligent in their calculations. He was not aware of the error until he had already been in the ANG for nearly one year. He relied on the calculations provided and was misled. The misrepresentation is unjust and warrants remission of the indebtedness. To date, he has repaid $8,462.22 which exceeds the $5,178.94. He requests the deductions to stop from his pay and the remainder of the wrongfully charged indebtedness be remitted. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: SAF/MRBB recommends denial. To grant relief would be contrary to the criteria established in AFI 36-3034, Remission of Indebtedness. Although the applicant was clearly misinformed, he is requesting to keep $13,527.94 which he was only authorized to keep if he fulfilled the service obligation of his SRB contract. The applicant incurred a six year obligation under the SRB contract. Although the applicant was given erroneous information when he inquired about the amount owed, it was not reasonable for him to believe that after serving approximately 56 percent (1,205 of 2,160 days) of his SRB obligation that he was authorized to keep over 90 percent ($49,207.50 of $54,676.00) of the total SRB entitlement. Therefore, although the finance office erred in providing misinformation to the applicant, it is not an injustice to deny the relief requested. The applicant requested a remission of his debt which was denied by the SAF Remissions Board and on appeal to the Director of the Air Force Review Boards Agency. However, if the decision is made to grant the requested relief of remitting all but $5,178.00 of the $18,705.04, the decision should state, “The applicant’s request for partial remission of the debt is granted. Therefore, remission of $13,527.94 is approved. Since the applicant has already paid in excess of $5,178.00 toward the debt, no collection will be made and the applicant will be reimbursed for all money paid toward the debt in excess of $5,178.00.” A complete copy of the SAF/MRBB evaluation is at Exhibit F. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In an e-mail dated 12 December 2015, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the additional Air Force evaluation and declined to submit any additional evidence. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant partial relief. We give great deference to the expertise of the Air Force Remissions Board and it is important to note that our recommendation in this specific case in no way undermines the fact that without substantial evidence that was not considered by the Remissions Board in making its original decision, we are not inclined to disturb the outcome in such a case simply because an applicant is not satisfied with the decision. However, after carefully considering all the facts and the unique circumstances of this case, it is our opinion that the applicant made a significant career decision based on the advice given and we believe it would be in the interest of justice and in the best interest of the Air Force to grant some relief to the applicant. We note the rationale of the Remissions Board that even though finance officials erroneously led the applicant to believe that only $5,178.94 of his re-enlistment bonus would be subject to recoupment, the applicant should have known the advice given on this point was erroneous as he had only served roughly one half of the period for which the bonus was authorized. Nevertheless, we believe the applicant exercised more than reasonable diligence as Air Force officials had at least three opportunities to correctly advise the applicant that $18,705.94 was subject to recoupment if he separated from the Air Force as evidenced by his multiple communiques with local finance officials. We also note the applicant provides letters of support from the Chief Financial Officer and his commander stating the applicant relied on an incorrect debt computation in making his decision to separate from active duty. We believe that, being closer to events, their opinions deserve considerable deference in this matter. Furthermore, we find it important to note that the Air Force continued to benefit from the applicant's service during the full period for which the bonus was authorized given the applicant chose to separate from the Regular Air Force to take a full-time AGR position with the ANG where he continues to serve to this day. This alone would not be a basis for us to grant relief in a similar case where a member happened to complete his service obligation in a full- time position in a Reserve or other component. In this case, however, the applicant is a member of the only blended unit (comprised of RegAF, ANG and Reserve members) in the Air Force, and the applicant continued his service as a member of the same wing, performing the same duties as an Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Operator, when he transitioned from the Regular Air Force to the AGR program in the ANG. Therefore, we are persuaded the distinctive circumstances in this case warrant partial approval of his request. While the applicant requests the indebtedness amount be reduced to $5,178.94, we find it appropriate to correct the record to reflect the indebtedness was $10,646.44, which represents the amount quoted by the finance office ($5,178.94), plus the FY13 SRB annual payment ($5,467.50) issued to the applicant after his separation from the RegAF, for a total remission of $8,059.50. Accordingly, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 25 February 2014, SAF/MRB remitted $8,059.50 of the applicant’s indebtedness. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02833 in Executive Session on 6 August and 15 December 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 July 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 15 June 2015. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 June 2015. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 July 2015, w/atchs. Exhibit F. Memorandum, SAF/MRBB, dated 11 December 2015. Exhibit G. E-mail, AFBCMR, dated 11 December 2015. Exhibit H. E-mail, Applicant, dated 12 December 2015.