%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-06-11T13:14:40-04:00
2021-06-11T13:14:39-04:00
2021-06-11T13:14:40-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
98110227
uuid:f2a92200-6ba6-4ae5-a762-233242fde031
uuid:f0103fd0-77e0-48b7-8519-23ff49ccac7a
Acrobat Web Capture 15.0
endstream
endobj
5 0 obj
<>
endobj
6 0 obj
<>
endobj
3 0 obj
<>
endobj
7 0 obj
<>
endobj
8 0 obj
<>
endobj
16 0 obj
<>>>
endobj
17 0 obj
<>
endobj
18 0 obj
<>
endobj
20 0 obj
[19 0 R 19 0 R]
endobj
21 0 obj
[19 0 R 19 0 R]
endobj
22 0 obj
[19 0 R 19 0 R]
endobj
19 0 obj
<><><><>]/P 17 0 R/Pg 13 0 R/S/Article>>
endobj
13 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
23 0 obj
[29 0 R]
endobj
24 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(98110227)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(/_MyComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/claims/civili\
an/HTML%20Word/98110227.html)Tj
49.38 0 Td
([6/11/2021 1:14:40 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
0.604 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 734.2497 cm
0 0 m
0.75 -0.75 l
579 -0.75 l
579.749 0 l
h
f
Q
0.933 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.7499 733.5 cm
0 0 m
-0.75 -0.75 l
579 -0.75 l
578.25 0 l
h
f
Q
0.604 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 732.7503 cm
0 0 m
0.75 0.75 l
0 1.499 l
h
f
Q
0.933 g
q 1 0 0 1 594.9999 733.5 cm
0 0 m
0.75 -0.75 l
0.75 0.75 l
h
f
Q
0.604 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 650.25 cm
0 0 m
0.75 -0.75 l
579 -0.75 l
579.749 0 l
h
f
Q
0.933 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.7499 649.5003 cm
0 0 m
-0.75 -0.751 l
579 -0.751 l
578.25 0 l
h
f
Q
0.604 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 648.7497 cm
0 0 m
0.75 0.751 l
0 1.5 l
h
f
Q
0.933 g
q 1 0 0 1 594.9999 649.5003 cm
0 0 m
0.75 -0.751 l
0.75 0.75 l
h
f
Q
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 749.25 Tm
(November 19, 1998)Tj
0 -2.75 TD
(In Re:)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
([Redacted])Tj
T*
(Claimant)Tj
0 -2.75 TD
(\))Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Claims Case No. 98110227)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
15.224 -2.125 Td
(CLAIMS APPEALS BOARD DECISION)Tj
-15.224 -2.125 Td
(DIGEST)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
T*
(An employee's installation was targeted for closing, and the employee wa\
s permitted to accrue annual leave in excess of)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(240 hours per year as Base Realignment and Closure)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
21.411 0 Td
(\(BRAC\) leave. The employee had 175.3 BRAC leave hours at the)Tj
-21.411 -1.125 Td
(end of 1994. The first leave and earning statement \(LES\) in 1996 credi\
ted him with an additional 118 BRAC leave)Tj
T*
(hours for 1995. However, in February 1996, a subsequent LES credited the\
employee with an additional 118 hours of)Tj
T*
(BRAC leave. The employee was terminated in June 1996 due)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
24.91 0 Td
(to a reduction in force, and he received payment for the)Tj
-24.91 -1.125 Td
(additional118 hours of 1995 BRAC leave that was erroneously credited. Th\
e employee should have questioned the)Tj
T*
(second)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(accreditation of 118 hours. His statement that he relied upon an audit o\
f his leave account just before)Tj
T*
(termination, and a general statement from a pay official that his leave \
account)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.376 0 Td
(was in order, does not relieve him of at)Tj
-31.376 -1.125 Td
(least partial fault for the erroneous overpayment resulting from the cre\
diting of the additional 118 hours. His waiver)Tj
T*
(request is denied.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
0 -2.125 TD
(DECISION)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
T*
(A former Navy employee appeals DOHA's Claims Settlement, DOHA Claim No. \
98042805, September 4,1998, which)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(sustained the Defense Finance and Accounting Office's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
22.367 0 Td
(\(DFAS\) denial of his application for waiver of a debt of)Tj
-22.367 -1.125 Td
($1,944.64. In February 1996, the Navy erroneously credited the employee \
with 118 hours of accrued annual leave in)Tj
T*
(excess)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(of the amount that the employee had actually accrued, and the debt arose\
when the erroneous leave balance was)Tj
T*
(reflected in the payment for accrued leave which the employee)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
25.376 0 Td
(received when he was separated in June 1996.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
-3.86 -2.125 Td
(Background)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.517 -2.125 Td
(The administrative record shows that the employee was employed at the Na\
val Air Station in Alameda, California, and)Tj
0 -1.375 TD
(that he was permitted to accrue annual leave in excess of 240)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
24.712 0 Td
(hours because Alameda was subject to closure.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 538.1406 240.75 Tm
(\(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 538.1406 240 cm
0 0 m
11.369 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 549.5093 236.25 Tm
( The)Tj
-44.459 -1.125 Td
(employee's leave and earnings statement \(LES\) for the last two pay per\
iods in 1995 showed that he was credited with)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(175.3)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(BRAC leave hours, and the first LES for 1996 \(pay period ending January\
27, 1996\) showed that he had 293.3)Tj
T*
(hours of BRAC leave \(a January 1, 1995, balance of 175.3 BRAC)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
26.634 0 Td
(hours plus 118 BRAC hours earned during 1995\).)Tj
-26.634 -1.125 Td
(However, for the pay period ending February 24, 1996, the employee's LES\
suddenly showed an increase in BRAC)Tj
T*
(leave credit by)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
6.136 0 Td
(an additional 118 hours, raising the balance from 293.3 hours to 411.3 h\
ours. The employee was)Tj
-6.136 -1.125 Td
(erroneously double- credited with 118 hours of BRAC leave for 1995. When\
he)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
32.159 0 Td
(separated on June 30, 1996, he was)Tj
-32.159 -1.125 Td
(compensated for 411.3 BRAC leave hours instead of 293.3 BRAC leave hours\
.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(In this appeal, the employee contends that the Settlement Certificate wa\
s not based on the facts and that the conclusions)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(are not supported by the record. He contends that the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
21.41 0 Td
(adjudicator merely assumed the facts in issue; namely, that he was)Tj
-21.41 -1.125 Td
(overpaid for an erroneous credit of BRAC leave. He contends that he was \
properly paid, and alternatively, even if)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
45.762 0 Td
(he)Tj
-45.762 -1.125 Td
(was not, it was due to no fault of his own. Finally, the employee conten\
ds that the decisions relied upon in the)Tj
T*
(Settlement Certificate involved employees who did not dispute the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
26.911 0 Td
(existence of a legal indebtedness. In support of his)Tj
-26.911 -1.125 Td
(application for waiver, the employee stated that he had carefully monito\
red his pay statements and saw nothing wrong.)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
25 0 obj
<>
endobj
26 0 obj
(9n`R)
endobj
27 0 obj
<>
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
32 0 obj
<>
endobj
33 0 obj
<>stream
H\n0yCZ !8G i(o?;:iH/|ĉP~ѻ3̲07߂bHӷ8ayfjۍ(dlD
^Wu^|seYJ.Ҹf ump5E|.diGkZ(b|JY)Xo>]H(8A2ow;4 (M`ly<)sJ1gĊY91Y\G#PY";(rYs1:İ&7nyO̞<5ir-g|r+r>l(ӧ-ڷ7᪅zS{F'1^+
endstream
endobj
34 0 obj
<>stream
H|y\TG5o^p fZ5IHkv57FCPTQ4xߊ":x߷"*^(3maW0=jߧ~@BTϚ'_XBbbی3@@C_&g
ܮ1jc@KJbu0hE| 'eduq? >i:(.V^ mZlVz\. *Wi ΩyB?*?}W8 iIHD4z7 zyRB}JH%,k$M4uDV_1 riO{fm%j
@O(X`(Z=pJZuzO/o~5kS7^P`44hبq?5m-[uAkߡc;wKOn?|w_tL,OH4 9%5mCf|9,kߌ=fr~&O:mfϙ;o[`+VW^VZhMlݶ}]ݷC8R|'O>sΗ_x2^XW܀60G,4B,U&ƠY/I=aR4I"-Jϵ>r3s9Z/OG3.]~~r$4$GtV+J_KeU)VDy8
i<Sc?8d\*&_)ؤbM a00
Uz~jZGMVjQs uT]nVw{bzVޏh1"&"."1"%bPAM;"kmOdg{=c!xVݮYu3̙v:\{@QGS$KQ)Gp&Jem
m['Sr(}~BԐg(BDŽV)uUz)ZlWJKuJy.w!0P 8m1xéTS)%'pziZyéTp"8SBDM똃&F'!S{{'{{:%_g39u>r?|uܵLOx<Q85Dz"N-mcy