MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  11 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031505

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

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Paul A. Petty		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Mr. James M. Alward		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that her debt to the government for overpayment to her of separation funds be remitted or cancelled.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that when she was separated from the Army under the Special Separation Bonus program, she was overpaid $24,558.54.  When she asked her finance office about the payment, feeling that is was a bit to much, she was assured that the payment was correct and to keep it.  She later received a collection notice from Defense Finance and Accounting (DFAS) Debt Collection Office at Indianapolis to collect back the $24,558.54.  She communicated with the Separation Branch of DFAS Indianapolis and was led to believe that her debt was cleared.  The credit reporting agency, TRW, showed that the debt was paid by settlement in November 1993.  The applicant said she tried to get a document from DFAS to show what was reported by TRW, but was never able to get such a document.  In 1997, she applied to DFAS for a waiver of repayment on the basis of financial hardship but DFAS denied the request.  She appealed the denial twice but twice the appeal was denied.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

That the applicant in 1992 was a Sergeant E-5 in the Regular Army with 13 years of service.  She requested and was approved for separation on 1 June 1992 under the FY92 Enlisted Voluntary Early Transition Program with a Special Separation Bonus (SSB).  The bonus entitlement was for $35,127.62, less tax withholding, to make the net amount of $29,286.72.  She was also to receive an additional $4,054.35 in other pay and entitlements.  These disbursements totaled $33,341.07.  However, the applicant erroneously received disbursements totaling $57,899.61.  The applicant stated that she notified her finance office that she thought she had been paid too much but the finance personnel incorrectly told her that the payments were correct and to keep them.

On or about March 1993, the applicant received a debt and collection notice from DFAS Indianapolis for $24,558.54, the difference between her authorized entitlements of $33,341.07 and the total disbursements of $57,899.61 which included an erroneous payment of $29,156.23.  The applicant began making repayment of $100 to $150 a month.  She made payments up to October 1998 and made an additional payment in June 1999.  Her current amount owed is $21,405.30.

In 1997, the applicant applied to the DFAS Denver Debt and Claims Management Office for a waiver of the debt based on financial hardship.  On 9 September 1997, the Debt and Claims Management Office denied her request finding that she had known that she was overpaid when she received the disbursements, that the collection did not violate equity and good conscience, and that the collection was in the best interest of the United States.  The applicant appealed this decision to the Defense Office of Hearing and Appeals (DOHA) in Arlington, Virginia, on 2 February 1998.  On 15 June 1998, the DOHA determined that she was overpaid $24,558,54, that it was a government error, but that she knew it was an overpayment and should have pursued its return or obtaining written verification that it was authorized.  The DOHA denied the waiver.  The applicant then appealed to the DOHA Claim Appeals Board.  The Claims Appeals Board, finding no evidence to support a waiver and finding that the applicant knew that she had been overpaid, confirmed the DOHA Settlement Certificate on 27 October 1998 denying waiver of the debt.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant knew that she had been overpaid significantly although at first she did not know the exact amount.  Although she had been told by finance personnel that her last payment of $29,156.23 issued upon discharge on 1 June 1992 was correct and to keep it, she knew that she had already received approximately $27,502.38 of her SSB and entitlements on 31 March 1992 and that the additional payment of $29,156.23 significantly exceeded what she expected to be paid, a total of about $35,000 as she understood at that time.  Her exact SSB authorization and other entitlements after tax withholdings was $33,341.07 ($29,286.72 for SSB after taxes were withheld and $4,054.35 in other pay and entitlements).

2.  Since the applicant stated that she knew that she was overpaid, by the standards of integrity and honesty expected of soldiers, she had the duty to retain the overpaid amount for subsequent refund to the government.

3.  The applicant has presented no evidence to substantiate financial hardship caused by repayment to the government of the overpayment she received.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__RO___  __CP___  __JA____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR199031505	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000511	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.