BNUMBER:  B-265873
DATE:  February 29, 1996
TITLE:  Major James P. Burton, USAFR-Waiver Request

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Major James P. Burton, USAFR-Waiver Request

File:     B-265873

Date:February 29, 1996

DIGEST

An Air Force Reserve officer who was receiving aviation career 
incentive pay (ACIP) was assigned to a nonflying position.  While 
regulations authorize continuing ACIP in these circumstances for a 
maximum of 24 months, he received an order indicating that it would 
continue for 4 years.  He continued receiving ACIP for 4 years under 
the order, plus an additional year after the order expired.  
Collection of the ACIP he received attributable to the extra 2 years 
erroneously authorized by the order was properly waived.  However, 
waiver of the amounts paid for the period after the order expired was 
properly denied.  He had a duty to verify his entitlement to ACIP 
after the order expired.  Since he did not do so for a year, he is not 
without fault in regard to these payments.

DECISION

This is in response to an appeal of a Claims Group settlement[1] which 
denied in part the waiver request of Major James P. Burton, USAFR.  We 
affirm the Claims Group's settlement.

In March 1988 Major Burton, who was assigned to a flying position 
entitling him to receive aviation career incentive pay (ACIP),[2] was 
reassigned to a nonflying position.  Air Force regulations provide 
that a Reserve officer temporarily reassigned to a nonflying rated 
position, under certain conditions, continues to be eligible for ACIP 
for up to 24 months.[3]  Incident to his reassignment, Major Burton 
received orders in 1988 which incorrectly indicated that ACIP was 
unaffected by the change through March 25, 1992, i.e. for 4 years.  
Major Burton received ACIP through March 1992, and beyond.  In March 
1993, a year after the erroneous 4-year period expired, he questioned 
whether his pay was correct.  As a result of his inquiry, orders to 
correct the termination of the ACIP were issued February 24, 1994, 
effective March 18, 1990, 2 years after his change to a nonflying 
position.

Payments of ACIP made after March 18, 1990, were erroneous, since that 
is the end of the maximum 24-month period for which the flight pay was 
authorized to be paid under applicable regulations.  The Air Force 
determined that the erroneous payments totalled $12,436.64, and 
advised Major Burton that he was in debt for that amount.  He 
requested that the debt be waived.

The Air Force advised our Claims Group that Major Burton appeared to 
be without fault in accepting payments of ACIP for the erroneous 2 
years authorized under his aeronautical order which expired in March 
1992, and therefore recommended waiver of the government's claim for 
$6,196.70, the erroneous amount received before that date.  However, 
the Air Force recommended denial of waiver of $6,239.94, the amount 
received after that date, since Major Burton appeared to be at fault 
for not verifying his entitlement to receive ACIP after the 1988 order 
expired.  Our Claims Group agreed with the Air Force, partially 
granting and partially denying Major Burton's waiver request on this 
basis.

In appealing the partial denial of waiver, Major Burton argues that he 
was unaware of the 24-month limit on ACIP for a member in his 
situation and that he was told that his ACIP would continue as long as 
he passed an annual flight physical.  He states that until a change in 
the way ACIP was being certified on orders led him to check his 
entitlement (apparently in March 1993), he was never aware of a 
problem with his receipt of this pay or that there may not have been 
any new aeronautical orders issued to continue his ACIP.  He said he 
thought that such orders had been issued locally.  He contends, 
therefore, that the entire debt should be waived because he was 
without fault in the matter, noting that it was because he questioned 
his pay in March 1993, that the error was discovered.  He also states 
that repayment would be a hardship for him and his family.

Under 10 U.S.C.  sec.  2774, the Comptroller General may waive a claim 
against a member of the uniformed services arising out of an erroneous 
payment of pay and allowances if collection would be against equity 
and good conscience and not in the best interest of the United States.  
The statute also provides that the claim may not be waived if there is 
any indication of fraud, fault, or lack of good faith on the member's 
part.

We interpret "fault," as used in 10 U.S.C.  sec.  2774, as including 
something more than a proven overt act or omission by the member.  
Thus, we consider fault to exist if in light of all the facts it is 
determined that the member should have known that an error existed and 
taken action to have it corrected.  The standard we employ is to 
determine whether a reasonable person should have been aware that he 
was receiving payment in excess of his proper entitlement.  See 
Lieutenant Commander Melvin W. Mills, USN, Retired, B-194738, Feb. 29, 
1980.

Waiver of the erroneous ACIP Major Burton received for the 2-year 
period before March 25, 1992, was based on a finding that he was 
without fault in receiving ACIP payments during that period because 
his orders authorized its continuation until that date, and he had no 
reason to know the orders were erroneous.  However, we cannot agree 
with Major Burton that he was without fault in accepting amounts paid 
after that time.  He knew that he had been reassigned to a nonflying 
position in 1988, and that the order issued at that time under which 
his ACIP was being continued expired in March 1992.  Although he may 
have received some incorrect information about his entitlement to such 
pay and may have thought that new orders had been issued, he had a 
responsibility to verify that his entitlement in fact continued beyond 
the expiration date indicated on the 1988 order.  If he had done so 
promptly, the error could have been corrected much sooner.  Since he 
did not do so until a year after the order expired, we cannot conclude 
that he is free from fault in receiving the erroneous payments made 
after March 25, 1992.  See B-194738, supra.  As noted above, an 
indication of fault on the member's part precludes waiver under 10 
U.S.C.  sec.  2774.

Finally, concerning his statement that repayment of the debt will 
cause him financial hardship, that fact alone does not provide a basis 
for waiver.  See B-194738, supra.  If he finds the repayment schedule 
the Air Force has established for him overly burdensome, he may 
request that the Air Force adjust it.  That, however, is a matter 
primarily for the Air Force to consider.

Accordingly, we affirm the Claims Group settlement.

/s/Lowell Dodge
for Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel

1. Z-2927351-025, dated August 17, 1994. 

2. Authorized under 37 U.S.C.  sec.  301a, and implementing regulations.

3. Air Force Regulation 60-13, para. 13-16.