Request for Waiver of Debt for Erroneous Payments of Pay and Allowances

A former member of the Air Force appealed a Claims Division denial of his request for waiver of his debt to the United States. The issue presented was whether erroneous payments of pay and allowances deposited to a person's bank account and credit union account by the Air Force after the member was separated from the service may be waived. At the time of his separation he was paid an amount which was due him. Subsequently, he received a midmonth payment and an end-of-month payment which were deposited directly into his bank checking account; his former allotment was paid to his account at a credit union. When the error was discovered, the member was notified of the error by letter. The member claimed that he was unaware of the erroneous payments because they were deposited directly into his accounts and he did not receive a final leave and earnings statement after his separation. His bank statement for the period concerned showed an overage which he assumed was the result of his rounding off when writing checks. Legislation provides that a claim against a member or former member of the uniformed services arising out of an erroneous payment of pay or allowances may be waived if collection would be against equity and good conscience and not in the best interest of the United States. However, the Comptroller General may not exercise his authority to waive any claim if an indication of fraud, misrepresentation, fault, or lack of good faith exists on the part of the member. Fault is considered to exist if it is determined that the member should have known that an error existed but failed to take action to have it corrected. If a member has records which, if reviewed, would reveal the error, and he fails to review these records for accuracy or fails to take corrective action, he is not without fault and waiver will be denied. In this case, the member should have been aware of the possibility that excess amounts had been deposited to his accounts. Therefore, GAO concluded that he was not without fault in the matter for not bringing the possibility of erroneous payments to the attention of the proper officials. Accordingly, the Claims Division denial was sustained.