IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 October 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230001812 APPLICANT REQUESTS: removal/cancellation of indebtedness in the amount of $2,983.72. A personal appearance before the Board. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) Letter of Indebtedness, 9 November 2022 * DA Form 3508 (Application for Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness), 9 November 2022 * DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), 9 November 2022 * Leave and Earnings Statement (LES), 1-31 October 2022 * DA Form 1506 (Statement of Service – For Computation of Length of Service for Pay Purposes) packet * Memorandums for Request for Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness, dated 9 November 2022 * U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) Memorandum, Subject: Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness - Original * HRC Memorandum, Subject: Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness - Revised FACTS: 1. The applicant states, in pertinent part, her debt in the amount of $5,967.44 was fully remitted under Army Regulation (AR) 600-4 (Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness), and 7 days later the decision was rescinded and changed to partial remission in the amount of $2,983.72. a. She was reappointed from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) to the Regular Army (RA) following completion of Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) and veterinary school, as a member of the Army's Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP). Upon accession in the RA, the Army erroneously established her Pay Entry Basic Date (PEBD) as the date she was initially appointed in the USAR to participate in ROTC. The time-period a USAR officer participates in ROTC and HPSP is statutorily excluded from counting as creditable service for determining longevity pay, which is determined by the PEBD. An HPSP graduate's PEBD is supposed to be the date they accept reappointment in the RA and enters active duty. As a result, she was erroneously paid as a captain (CPT) with 7 years of service. She was informed of the above service credit exclusion and potential issue for overpayment upon reporting to Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) to attend the Basic Officer Leaders Course (BOLC). Although JBSA had the ability to review, verify, and correct the PEBD, the BOLC leadership advised all newly appointed officers who participated in HPSP to verify themselves and, if necessary, correct the error upon reporting to their first unit of assignment following completion of training – which is 7 weeks later (at the earliest). Upon completion of BOLC and during in-processing at Fort Campbell, KY, she immediately raised this issue and corrected her PEBD. The time-line substantiating her due diligence is as follows: (1) On 06 October 2022 and after advisement from Mr. , the Fort Campbell PAS Chief, she submitted a packet (which contained a DA Form 1506, Statement of Service – For Computation of Length of Service for Pay Purposes) to correct her PEBD. (2) On 09 November 2022 she received a debt letter and was advised by Mr. and the Fort Campbell Military Pay Office to submit a debt relief packet, which was completed approximately 1 week later. (3) On 22 November 2022 she received a decision from HRC awarding full debt remission. (4) On 29 November 2022 she received a new email and memorandum from HRC rescinding the previous decision and reducing the debt from full remission to half remission. b. The Army overpaid her because of a known and common administrative error that could have been corrected upon her immediate accession from the USAR to the RA. She did not contribute to the indebtedness and as a newly commissioned officer, additionally, she did not and could not have known with any level of certainty the complex rules governing creditable service for longevity pay. However, once informed of the potential for her record to contain inaccurate service credit data, she immediately communicated the same to all leaders and took reasonable steps for timely correction. c. Upon receipt of the first remission letter, she believed the matter was resolved and no longer safeguarded the funds that she was overpaid. As noted within the first approval remitting the entire debt, the overpayment was not later found to be obtained or converted to her own use through fraud, larceny, embezzlement, or any other unlawful means. This is the only criteria listed for a change in decision. d. She satisfied the conditions of AR 600-4 by, and in a timely manner, informing the proper authority of the pay error. She received a decision remitting the debt which should not have been reversed under the conditions set forward by AR 600- 4 and the decision memorandum itself. 2. A review of the applicant's available service record reflects the following: a. On 7 November 2014, she enlisted as a Cadet with the University ROTC program. b. On 11 May 2018: the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) ROTC Department of Military Science, University issued the following: (1) The USAR ROTC Department of Military Science, University issued Orders Number 131-13 discharging her from the USAR Control Group (ROTC), effective 10 May 2018. (2) The Army ROTC Department of Military Science, University by memorandum, she was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army in the rank/grade of second lieutenant (2LT)/O-1. (3) She accepted commission as a Reserve officer and executed an oath of office. c. On 12 April 2019: (1) She accepted a Reserve Commission at the rank/grade of 2LT/O-1 and executed an oath of office. (2) USAREC Form 601-37.28 (Department of the Army Service Agreement F. Edward Herbert Armed Force Health Professions Scholarship Program (AFHPSP)), shows her enrollment into a degree in Doctor of Veterinary Medicine program. d. On 24 July 2022, she was appointed as a RA commissioned officer in the Veterinary Corps in the rank/grade of captain (CPT)/O-3 and executed an oath of office. e. Her Officer Record Brief dated 1 December 2022, Section III (Service Data) shows a PEBD date of 23 August 2021. f. She continues service. 3. The applicant provides the following: a. DFAS Letter of Indebtedness, dated 9 November 2022 showing she had an outstanding debt in the amount of $5,967.44 to the U.S. Government for overpayment of PEBD from 24 July 2022 – 31 October 2022. b. DA Form 3508, dated 9 November 2022 wherein the applicant submitted her request for remission or cancellation of indebtedness for the outstanding amount of $5,967.44. c. DA Form 2823, dated 9 November 2022 showing her statement of the circumstances that led to her overpayment. d. LES, dated 1-31 October 2022 which reflect her compensation at the grade of CPT with 7 years of service and her pay date as 7 November 2014. e. DA Form 1506 packet submitted to Mr. W-C- for correction of her PEBD date. f. Memorandums for Request for Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness, dated 9 November 2022 showing her intermediate commander's support for the remission of cancellation of indebtedness. g. HRC Memorandum, Subject: Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness – (Original), showing HRC approved the remission of indebtedness in the amount of $5,967.44. h. HRC Memorandum, Subject: Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness – (Revised), showing HRC reviewed the original approval and rescinded the decision, amending the remission of indebtedness to partial approval in the amount of $2,983.72. The memorandum states, information contained within the request does not warrant approval in whole in accordance with AR 600-4, paragraph 14, subparagraph a. stating the applicant did not know, and could not have known of the error. The applicant states she was aware of the error and brought it to the attention of leadership. At that time, the overpayment should have been safeguarded for repayment. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation. Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military records and Human Resources Command (HRC) -Incentives and Compensation Branch advisory opinion, the Board concurred with the advising official finding the applicant know of the overpayment and admitted that she brought the error to the attention of her leadership. The Board agreed, based on the applicant’s self-admission to being overpaid, the applicant should have safeguarded the funds for repayment once the error was resolved. Based on the recommendation of the advising official and evidence in the applicant’s record the Board determined there is insufficient evidence to support removal/cancellation of indebtedness in the amount of $2,983.72. Therefore, the Board denied relief. 2. 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 of equity and justice in this case. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :X :X :X DENY APPLICATION ? BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 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. Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation states in section 010201 (Service which is creditable) states, computation of creditable service. The several military pay and personnel systems use a variety of dates to determine various entitlements. Among them is the date that denotes how much service a member has for the purpose of determining longevity pay rates. The Army refers to this as the "pay entry basic date." For most members who enter and serve on active duty without a break in service, the basic pay date is the date the member enters active or inactive service. If, however, there is a break in service, the time between periods of service usually is not included. Also, there are statutory periods when service in a particular component may not be counted. Conversely, there are periods for which some members are given constructive service, even though they were not actually serving on active or inactive duty. Creditable service includes active or inactive service in the RA. 2. AR 600-4 (Remission or Cancelation of Indebtedness) provides policy and instructions for submitting and processing packets for remission or cancellation of indebtedness to the U.S. Army. Requests for remission or cancellation of indebtedness must be based on injustice, hardship, or both. A Soldier's debt to the U.S. Army may be remitted or canceled on the basis of this regulation in cases arising from debts incurred while serving on active duty or in an active status as a Soldier and debts acknowledged as valid. Additional factors to consider in determining injustice include the applicant did not know or could not have known of the error. 3. AR 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (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// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20230001812 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1