ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 August 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170011346 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his previous request to .removal of CriminalInvestigation Division (CID) titling .restoration of retirement rank .cancellation of DefenseFinance and Accounting Service (DFAS) debt .full refund of all monies paid toDFAS .personal appearance beforethe Board APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: .DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Records) .self-authored letter •email from L S .self-authored document regarding Trial Counsel Memo •Statement from Lieutenant Colonel •Trial Counsel Memo .continuation page from Article 15 [removed from Official Military Personnel File(OMPF)] .DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) .travel voucher information .letter from attorney for first Army Board for Correction of Military Records(ABCMR) case .letter from attorney for advisory opinion on first ABCMR case .leave and earnings statements .debt account statement .self-authored letter to DFAS F •letter from •letter from DFAS .self-authored of review of the letter from DFAS .request for debt action to be suspended by the Commanding General (CG) .self-authored letter regarding CG's request .DFAS letter to CG .DFAS response to Congressional filed by applicant .self-authored review of Congressional .self-authored synopsis of Congressional .Inspector General (IG) action request .cover letter to amended travel vouchers .self-authored letter to DFAS regarding travel voucher .letter from DFAS regarding debt .self-authored letter response to DFAS debt letter .previous ABCMR application .removal of document from OMPF .memorandum for record (MFR) review of titling .Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) decision FACTS: 1.Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in theprevious consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket NumberAR20150008534 on 21 June 2016.2.The applicant’s request for restoration of retirement rank is already corrected;therefore, it will not be considered by the Board. The applicant was honorably retireddue to a disability on 11 June 2014 in the grade of O5/LTC. An email from DFASconfirms he is retired in the grade of O5/LTC and is receiving LTC retirement pay. TheBoard will consider:•removal of CriminalInvestigation Division (CID) titling•cancellation of DefenseFinance and Accounting Service (DFAS) debt•full refund of all monies paid toDFAS•personal appearance beforethe Board3.The applicant states:•based off of a misguided and incomplete investigation conducted in 2007 by theArmy CID, he was listed as a suspect in a Temporary Duty fraud case•critical errors were made in the investigation resulting in false title that led to anArticle 15, DFAS demand for repayment of $62,000, reduction to pay gradeO-4/Major upon retirement, and flagging action which resulted in non-promotionto Colonel/O-6 .it was believed he purchased a home fraudulently and submitted for lodgingreimbursement for the house while he was on temporary duty (TDY) at thePentagon .the Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JRTR) U-4137 authorizes the purchase of ahome for use while on TDY .reimbursement is settled by submitting a DD Form 1351 (Travel Voucher) .the soldiers working in the DFAS office authorized him to submit a one pagereceipt which allowed DFAS to complete the monthly reimbursement within 30days .this helps avoid any complications with late payments which could havejeopardized his security clearance .the process was approved by the Judge Advocate General (JAG) officers prior tothe submission of the travel vouchers .neither finance or JAG were questioned about their prior approvals or knowledgeand were not properly interviewed .this resulted in an incomplete and inadequate investigation that falsely titled aSoldier .with finance and JAG's prior knowledge and approval, this removed the elementof intent which is key and needed in order to complete the crime of fraud .after reviewing the CID investigation, he found the issue was how the authorizedreimbursement was submitted .his case was investigated by his US Army Reserve (USAR) unit and the findingwas no crime was committed and no loss or suspension of his security clearance .the Article 15 was appealed and removed from his military records .his Chief of Police and staff reviewed the CID report and the USAR investigationalong with the supporting documents and witness statements found no crime wascommitted nor was there any intent of a crime .he hired an attorney to correct the CID report .he requested CID to open and reevaluate the case .the compiled proceeding was forwarded but again without all of the required andaccurate valuable information which resulted in no change to the titling status .he appealed the DFAS demand letter and it was denied .he submitted his case to ABCMR in order to change the titling and it was denied .he is trying to get the CID report corrected and his name cleared as a suspect .he wants DFAS to refund his repayment of approximately $62,000 .he wants to rescind the reduction of pay grade determination from LTC to MAJupon reaching his retirement age .during his deployment to the Pentagon from 2002 to 2005 and in 2007, none ofhis Officer Evaluation Reports were negative and all were highly rated .all of his active duty deployments ended with honorable discharges .after his return from the Pentagon, he was placed in positions of higherresponsibility resulting in his promotion to LTC .he was selected to serve as the Long Range Plans/Future Operations Officerduring a combat tour to Iraq .he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal while serving in Iraq .he received his demand letter from DFAS on 15 June 2012 for repayment forhousing allowances received during two deployments to the Pentagon .the letter was based on the CID investigation that was signed in 2009 .he was not given the opportunity to address the inaccuracies in the investigation .he has exhausted all possible remedies to have the injustices corrected .the advisory opinion for his first ABCMR case missed critical information thatprevented the ABCMR from finding a favorable decision in his favor .he and his attorney sent a response regarding the advisory opinion, but theywere not addressed and they did not receive a response .there is sufficient evidence to clear him of any inappropriate actions and to havethe injustices levied against him overturned 4.In a self-authored letter to the Board, the applicant states, in part: .the provided documents are in support of his request to reverse decisions thatwere made by the ABCMR on 22 June 2016 .the ABCMR decision was based off an incomplete, inaccurate, and botched CIDinvestigation .the result is an unjustified and severe punishment .the CID investigator did not know he was following the advice he had receivedfrom Finance and JAG prior to his submission of the authorized travel vouchersfor TDY reimbursement .there are a multitude of critical and technical issues in the CID investigation .the investigation stated on 13 May 2009 he had pled guilty to 3 charges .this is not possible because the Article 15 that was dated 15 November 2007 wasappealed and removed from his records and it never discussed or listed anycharges on it .he received his honorable discharge on 28 November 2008 .the report date is one and a half years after he was discharged from active duty .it is clear the CID investigator lacked knowledge of the case .homes can be purchased while on TDY .if the investigator had started with finance or JAG and asked them about thetravel vouchers, nothing further would have happened .the investigator would have discovered there was no crime, never any intent tocommit a crime, and no such elements to support a crime .items that were available to CID and the ABCMR do not appear to have beenreviewed or questioned [a full list of the items are included with the applicant'ssubmission and are included in the attached evidence] .his request is based on critical issues, discrepancies and inaccuracies with theCID case .the CID agent did not know the JTR U4137 that authorized the purchase of ahome while on TDY and submitting for authorized reimbursements using theDD Form 1351-2 .this is evident and verifiable as it was never mentioned in the CID report nor wasit ever discussed or questions with Finance personnel during their interviews orwith any other witnesses .also omitted form the report were the recognized and noted systemic issues withextensive DFAS delays regarding TDY home purchases and reimbursements .no one was interviewed nor was anything discussed regarding the finance workaround in adopting the single receipt method to assist Soldier with timelyauthorized reimbursements .there were no questions or interviews of the finance or JAG personnel regardingverifying or identifying they had given their prior approval regarding the singlereceipt method with regards to his case .a commanding officer of his wrote to the CG that there was no intent to defraudthe government .the case was investigated by a senior Physical Security Officer and found itlacked any evidence of intent for the commission of a crime and closed asunfounded .the case was investigated by the San Jose Police Department and found not tocontain any elements of a crime, and he was cleared 5. The applicant provides the following documents in support of his claim:a. An email from Captain L which states he remembers talking with the applicant and LTC S and knows for a fact that people working in his position put out many pieces of false information, including everything on one receipt. He knows that during his time as the finance noncommissioned officer (NCO) there was great confusion from 2006 through 2007. He had to spend a lot of his time working with JAG and FAS directly to help everyone in the army operations center to correct their erroneous forms of documenting their payments and bills. b. A statement of witness LTC S which states he does not work in finance but is a JAG Operational Law Attorney. He did not tell the applicant he could rent his property to himself and submit rental documents for payment. The applicant asked him to ask finance about the TDY purchase reimbursement. He was told by finance they didn't know what he was talking about. He told the applicant he did not see a problem with submitting rental documents if it was the same amount as the TDY purchase bills. He told the applicant he didn't know the answer and told the applicant to talk to finance to get a definitive answer. He did not follow up with the issue. c. A self-authored document addressing incorrect statements found on the TrialCounsel Memo, is also included. The document states, the applicant believes the memo was written with the intent of misleading his chain of command resulting in forming an unjustified bias against him. Inaccuracies in the memo include: .paragraph 1 - his name is spelled wrong .paragraph 2 - he did not reside in or submit receipts for both of his rentalhomes .paragraph 2 - he did not almost always submit for the maximum amountreimbursable, he submitted for what his reimbursable costs were and savedthe government over $6,400 for 2007 and his rental business saved thegovernment over $33,500 .paragraph 2 - the memo says he only submitted for two months in 2007, hesubmitted for January through May of 2007 at the end of each month, thestatement in the memo is false and misleading •paragraph 2a - he did not submit vouchers claiming he rented 119 P , he submitted vouchers for 131 P .paragraph 2a(1) - vouchers were submitted only after approval from financeand JAG .paragraph 2a(4) - the reduction to $3,700 was to cover repay the overpayment initiated by the applicant .paragraph 2b - October 2004 through June 2005 the wrong address is listedhe did not submit travel vouchers for the address listed and the amountfollowed guidelines per FTR U4137 .paragraph 2b(1) - DCA industries does exist he stared the business in 1992 inCalifornia as a resale business he stopped his side business in 1994 hereopened the business in 2004 and has filed his taxes for 2004, 2005 and2006 .paragraph 2b(2) - he submitted travel vouchers for January through June not 9months as stated in the trial counsel memo; the overpayment statement isincorrect .paragraph 3 - he never lived with an NCO his bank statements and paymenttime line provided to CID verifies this .paragraph 3b - he lived with a LTC who was provided with a written leasecontract .paragraph 4 - the trial counsel refused the applicant's request for a meeting .paragraph 5 - he was forced into an Article 15 after sitting through an 8 monthinvestigation .nothing was ever mentioned about paying DFAS back .nothing in the memo addresses JTR U4137 allowable expenses d.The continuation page of an Article 15 which lists two charges of false officialstatements. e.His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for thetime period of 3 July 2007 through 28 November 2007. He served a total of 4 months and 26 days on active duty and was honorably discharged. f.A table which shows the travel vouchers submitted with the amount of money hereceived, the amount of the amended voucher, and the difference in the two. It also shows the per diem rate and the amount under the per diem rate. g.A memorandum from his attorney to the ABCMR for his first ABCMR case. h.A memorandum from his attorney to the advisory opinion from his first ABCMRcase. The applicant states this information was not included on his first ABCMR case. The memo states, in part: .the advisory opinion missed the entire point of the submitted supplementalstatement and lacks any value .the debt against the applicant is invalid .the applicant is innocent; as a matter of fact, DFAS applied the wrong law tothe analysis .there is not a single sentence addressing the argument that the governmentapplied the wrong laws to the applicant's case .the applicant is a Soldier and police officer who dedicated his entire life topublic service .he is a man of great integrity and conducted all reasonable due diligencebefore submitting his travel claims .they request the injustice be fully corrected i.Leave and earning statements from May through July 2014. j.An account statement of DFAS debt. k.Request for 90 day suspension of debt action. l. Memo from F which states, the applicant should first appeal the CID findings. A letter of recommendation needs to be sent to DFAS from his first general officer for the debt action to be suspended. The CID report cannot be sent to the applicant directly but a copy can be requested. m. A memo from DFAS stating his debt is valid. The total amount of the deb is$61,760.01 which is the total he received for lodging based on the false receipts submitted from October 2004 through May 2007. n. A self-authored review of the letter from DFAS which states, the 3rd paragraphfrom the DFAS letter says they received creditable information that indicated his claims during the periods of November 2004 through July 2005 and February 2007 through May 2007 were paid based on fraudulent information. The information was vetted and approved through JAG and DFAS agent due to DFAS internal delayed reimbursement issues. o. A request for debt collection suspension signed by the CG and a self-authored document regarding the background of the CG's letter. p.A letter from DFAS to the CG stating the debt could not be suspended. q.A response from the Congressional to DFAS for the debt along with the responsefrom DFAS, and a self-authored review of the DFAS response. r.A self-authored synopsis of the applicant's request for Congressional assistance. s.A self-authored letter to the Congresswoman regarding the DFAS debt. t.A DA Form 1559 (Inspector General Action Request) asking for expedited receiptof the CID report, recall of the flawed CID report that was sent to DFAS, and stop sending the flawed copies of the CID report to others. The applicant also includes a self-authored synopsis of the request to the IG. u.A self-authored cover letter to amended travel vouchers. It states, in part, he filedTDY vouchers requesting reimbursement for TDY expenses. He completed and submitted the TDY vouchers based on his understanding of advice given by JAG officers and finance personnel. He recently reviewed and reevaluated the TDY vouchers and based on the review and further analysis of JFTR provision he has prepared and submitted revised TDY vouchers. The revised vouchers better reflect the amount of reimbursement to which he was entitled to receive. v.A self-authored email to DFAS explaining why he resubmitted the travelvouchers. w.Letter from DFAS stating his owed $57,310.01 to DFAS with a suspense date forpayment. x.Previous application to the ABCMR. y.Memo for removal of the Article 15 from the applicant's official records. z.A memorandum for record signed by the formal Assistant Brigade IntelligenceOfficer which states in part, no criminal charges or complaints were ever filed with any agency. It is his opinion that the titling determination was unjust and improper as there was a lack of credible information of a crime or even administrative misconduct. The applicant performed exactly as the Army' JAG and finance advisors directed him to perform. aa. Memorandum from the AGDRB stating he will be placed on the retired list in the grade of O4/MAJ. 6.The applicant's records are void of and the applicant did not provide a complete copyof the CID investigation. Based on the documentation that was provided by theapplicant, he was suspected of submitting false travel vouchers for renting property thathe also owned. 7.The applicant states this practice was approved by both the finance NCO and a JAGofficer. The applicant provides an email from the finance NCO (now a Captain) whichstates he remembers talking to the applicant and the JAG officer. There was a lot ofconfusion with finance in 2006 and 2007 and he had to spend much time working withJAG and DFAS to help with erroneous forms of documenting payment and bills forreimbursement of TDY. 8.A summarized statement from the JAG officer, also provided by the applicant, statesthe JAG officer did not tell the applicant he could rent his own property to himself andsubmit rental documentation for payment. He told the applicant he did not see aproblem with submitting rental documents if it was the same amount as the TDYpurchase bills but the applicant should talk to finance to get a definitive answer. 9.Army Regulation 195-2 (Criminal Investigation Activities) states requests foramendments of a CID report of investigation will be granted only if the individualsubmits new, relevant, and material facts that are determined to warrant revision of thereport. 10.DODI 5505.7 (Titling and Indexing Subjects of Criminal Investigations in theDepartment of Defense) states once the subject of a criminal investigation is indexed,the name shall remain in the Defense Central Index of Investigations even if a laterfinding is made that the subject did not commit the offense under investigation, unlessthere was mistaken identity or if it is later determined a mistake was made at the timethe titling and/or indexing occurred in that credible information indicating that the subjectcommitted a crime did not exist. 11.The applicant references the Joint Federal Travel Regulations, paragraph U4137,which states a member may purchase and occupy a residence at a TDY location.Allowable expenses are the monthly mortgage interest; property tax; and utility costsactually incurred (does not include any installation and hook-up charges), e.g.,electricity, natural gas, water, fuel oil, sewer charges; prorated based on the number ofdays in the month rather than by the actual number of days the member occupied theresidence (57 Comp. Gen. 147 (1977)). In no case may the total per diem payableexceed the applicable maximum locality rate for the area unless an AEA (see Chapter4, Part C) is authorized/approved. Para. U4141 does not apply when the residence ispurchased. 11.The applicant received a letter from DFAS dated 8 August 2012 which stated athorough audit of his travel vouchers determined he owed $57,310.01. He rented ahouse from DCA Industries. He is listed as the company contact for DCA Industries.Their records also showed that he purchased the house he was renting from DCA in2004. He actually rented a property he owned while he was on TDY and claimedreimbursement on his travel claims using false receipts. Payments made under theseconditions are erroneous and must be recouped. 12.There is no provision within the JFTR that provides for an individual to rent his ownproperty and be reimbursed by DFAS. 13.The AGDRB reviewed the applicant's records for a grade determination inJuly 2012. The AGDRB directed the applicant be placed on the retired list in the gradeof O4/MAJ. The applicant was honorably retired due to a disability on 11 June 2014 inthe grade of O5/LTC. An email from DFAS confirms he is retired in the grade ofO5/LTC and is receiving LTC retirement pay. 14.Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) states an applicant is not entitled to a hearingbefore the ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by theDirector of the ABCMR. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1.The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered.In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision.As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest ofequity and justice in this case.2.After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence foundwithin the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The applicant’scontentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. TheBoard also considered the information and statements provided as new evidence. TheBoard found evidence that applicant acted fraudulently by submitting claims for rent reimbursement instead of claims for mortgage interest for the house that he owned. He had a financial interest in getting paid sooner rather than later even if the amount was the same or similar and that there was credible information indicating that he committed a crime existed at the time he was titled. The Board found further, that DFAS collected the full amount of the erroneous payments as allowed by regulation. Based upon apreponderance of the evidence, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence to amend the previous Board’s decision, finding no error or injustice. As a correction, the Board recommends that the 19 July 2012 AGDRB decision be removed from the applicant’s AMHRR. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :XXX :XXX :XXX DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, except for the correction noted in the discussion above, the Boarddetermined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20150008534 on 21 June 2016. 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. REFERENCES: 1.AR 195-2 (Criminal Investigation Activities) prescribes responsibilities, mission,objectives, and policies pertaining to the Army Criminal Investigation Program. Chapter4 contains guidance for investigative records, files, and reports. a.Paragraph 4-4 contains guidance for individual requests for access to oramendment of CID ROIs. It states that requests to amend CID ROIs will be considered only under the provisions of this regulation. b.Paragraph 4-4b states requests for amendment of a CID ROI will be granted onlyif the individual submits new, relevant, and material facts that are determined to warrant revision of the report. The burden of proof to substantiate the request rests with the individual. Requests to delete a person's name from the title block will be granted if it is determined that credible information did not exist to believe the individual committed the offense for which titled as a subject at the time the investigation was initiated or the wrong person's name has been entered as a result of mistaken identity. The decision to list a person's name in the title block of a CID ROI is an investigative determination that is independent of judicial, nonjudicial, or administrative action taken against the individual or the results of such action. Within these parameters, the decision to make any changes in the report rests within the sole discretion of the CG, CID. The decision will constitute final action on behalf of the Secretary of the Army with respect to requests for amendment under this regulation. 2.DODI 5505.7 (Titling and Indexing Subjects of Criminal Investigations in theDepartment of Defense) contains the authority and criteria for titling decisions andstates that titling only requires credible information that an offense may have been committed. It states that regardless of the characterization of the offense as founded, unfounded, or insufficient in evidence, the only way to administratively remove a titling action from the DCII is to show either mistaken identity or a complete lack of credible evidence to dispute the initial titling determination. a.Titling ensures investigators can retrieve information in an ROI of suspectedcriminal activity at some future time for law enforcement and security purposes. Whether or not to title is an operational decision made by investigative officials, rather than a legal determination made by attorneys. b.Titling or indexing (in the DCII) alone does not denote any degree of guilt orinnocence. Information is deemed credible if, "considering the source and nature of the information and the totality of the circumstances, it is sufficiently believable to indicate criminal activity has occurred and would cause a reasonable investigator under similar circumstances to pursue further facts of the case to determine whether a criminal act occurred or may have occurred." The criteria for titling are a determination that credible information exists that a person: may have committed a criminal offense or is otherwise made the object of a criminal investigation. 3.DODI 5505.7 contains further legal guidance. a.Section 6.1. Organizations engaged in the conduct of criminal investigationsshall place the names and identifying information pertaining to subjects of criminal investigations in title blocks of investigative reports. All names of individual subjects of criminal investigations by DOD organizations shall be listed in DCII. (This Instruction does not preclude the titling and indexing of victims or "incidentals" associated with criminal investigations.) Titling and indexing in the DCII shall be done as early in the investigation as it is determined that credible information exists that the subject committed a criminal offense. b.Section 6.3. The DOD standard that shall be applied when titling and indexingsubjects of criminal investigations is a determination that credible information exists indicating the subject committed a criminal offense. c.Section 6.6. Once the subject of a criminal investigation is indexed, the nameshall remain in the DCII even if a later finding is made that the subject did not commit the offense under investigation, subject to the following exceptions: (1)Section 6.6.1. Identifying information about the subject of a criminalinvestigation shall be removed from the title block of an ROI and DCII in the case of mistaken identity; i.e., the wrong person's name was placed in the ROI as a subject or entered into the DCII. (2)Section 6.6.2. Identifying information about the subject of a criminalinvestigation shall be removed from the title block of an ROI and the DCII if it is later determined a mistake was made at the time the titling and/or indexing occurred in that credible information indicating that the subject committed a crime did not exist. d. Section 6.9. When reviewing the appropriateness of a titling/indexing decision, the reviewing official shall consider the investigative information available at the time the initial titling decision was made to determine whether the decision was made in accordance with the standard stated in paragraph 6.3. 4. DODI 5505.7 also provides the following definitions: a. E1.1.1 – Credible Information: Information disclosed or obtained by an investigator that, considering the source and nature of the information and the totality of the circumstances, is sufficiently believable to lead a trained investigator to presume that the fact or facts are true. b. E1.1.2 – Criminal Investigation: Investigation into alleged or apparent violations of law undertaken for purposes which include the collection of evidence in support of potential criminal prosecution. c. E1.1.3 – DCII: A centralized database, organized in a searchable format, of selected unique identifying information and security clearance data utilized by security and investigative agencies in the DOD, as well as selected other Federal agencies, to determine security clearance status and the existence/physical location of criminal and personnel security investigative files. The DCII database is physically maintained by the Defense Security Service; however, the data it contains is the responsibility of the contributing agencies. d. E1.1.4 – Incidental: Any person or entity associated with a matter under investigation whose identity may be of subsequent value for law enforcement or security purposes. e. E1.1.5 – Indexing: Refers to the procedure whereby an organization responsible for conducting criminal investigations submits identifying information concerning subjects, victims, or incidentals of investigations for addition to the DCII. f. E1.1.6 – Subject: A person, corporation, or other legal entity about which credible information exists that would cause a trained investigator to presume that the person, corporation, or other legal entity committed a criminal offense. g. E1.1.7 – Title Block: Portion of an investigative report used to identify the persons, entities, or activities on which the investigation focuses. h. E1.1.8 – Titling: Placing the name(s) of person(s), corporation(s), other legal entity, organization(s), or occurrence(s) in the title block of a criminal investigative report. 5. Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation Volume 5, Chapter 25 paragraph 2504 states, claims shall be reviewed by the supporting DFAS Center to determine that the claim is complete as prescribed in this section and that the claim is otherwise proper for submission to the responsible settlement authority. If submission of all or a major part of the claim to the responsible settlement authority is not required, the claim shall be returned to the submitting office with advice that all or a major portion of the claim be paid locally, a citation to the regulation(s) that authorizes or provides for such payment, and a statement, if applicable, that the doubtful portion of the claim should be resubmitted. 6. Comptroller Decision B217114.7 states, accountable officers should have their liability for improperly paying fraudulent travel subsistence expense claims determined on the basis of the actual fraudulent overpayments made. Accountable officers are strictly liable for losses of government funds under their control. The government's loss for paying fraudulent subsistence claims is the amount overpaid due to the fraud. Prior cases which included in the officer's liability non-fraudulent expenses claimed for the same day as fraudulent expenses are modified. 7. Joint Federal Travel Regulations, Volume 1, in effect at the time, states a member may purchase and occupy a residence at a TDY location. Allowable expenses are the monthly mortgage interest, property tax, and utility costs actually incurred (does not include any installation and hook-up charges), e.g., electricity, natural gas, water, fuel oil, sewer charges; prorated based on the number of days in the month rather than by the actual number of days the member occupied the residence (57 Comp. Gen. 147 (1977)). In no case may the total per diem payable exceed the applicable maximum locality rate for the area unless an AEA (see Chapter 4, Part C) is authorized/approved. 8. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions. Additionally, it states in paragraph 2-11 that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//