Consumer complaint received 2016-05-02 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other (i.e. phone, health club, etc.)
Issue: Taking/threatening an illegal action — Sued w/o proper notification of suit
Company: Army and Air Force Exchange Service
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
I XXXX from XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX. 23 years ago, as a XXXX XXXX, I opened an account with the Army & Air Force Exchange Service ( AAFES ). After paying the balance in full in XXXX, I closed the account and made no additional purchases. I eventually left the XXXX in XXXX and subsequently took up residences in XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and now XXXX. 

I bought my current home in XXXX. When applying for this mortgage, my credit report had a clear record, without any delinquencies. 

On XXXX XXXX of this year, I received a certified letter from AAFES 's collection agency XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) that provided notice of a wage garnishment to be applied due to outstanding debt to the federal government of more than {$2000.00}. I had no previous knowledge of these charges and began to investigate. 

After many phone calls, emails, letters and reviews of credit report information, I was able to ascertain that sometime in XXXX, AAFES allowed this 20-year closed/dormant account to be re-activated and permitted someone to charge over {$2000.00} using my temporary XXXX address from XXXX. 

The following timeline and facts apply : On XXXX XXXX XXXX, I received a certified letter from AAFES/XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), that advised me of a Notice of Intent to initiate administrative wage garnishment proceedings. The action stemmed from an apparent AAFES debt. ( ATTACHED ) On XXXX XXXX XXXX, I called AAFES and collected as much information as they would tell me. From this call I learned the charges occurred in XXXX against an account that had been closed/dormant for 20 years. AAFES advised the issue was now being handled by their collection agency, XXXX. On this same day, I emailed a request to AAFES/TS requesting a fraud investigation into this matter. 

On XXXX XXXX XXXX, I received a letter from XXXX acknowledging my fraud allegation and requesting additional information from me to support my claim, to include a police report, XXXX forms of ID, XXXX copies of signatures, and affidavit of forgery. 

On XXXX XXXX XXXX, I received an email from XXXX indicating Proof of Debt was requested from AAFES. This XXXX email stated " The garnishment order will remain on hold to afford you time to review all documents provided. '' ( ATTACHED ) On XXXX XXXX XXXX, I received the AAFES Proof of Debt. This information was limited to partial account statements but failed to indicate what products were ordered, when they were ordered and where they were delivered. 

On XXXX XXXX XXXX, I provided the requested information to XXXX, to include the affidavit of forgery, sample signatures, police report, identification copies and proof of residency location over the last 20 years. 

On XXXX XXXX XXXX, I received a letter from yourself, XXXX XXXX XXXX, Risk Supervisor for AAFES, indicating receipt of my dispute and notification the case was assigned to an XXXX. 
On XXXX XXXX XXXX, I received a notice from the Department of Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, that {$2200.00} was withheld from my federal tax refund due to this disputed AAFES debt. This letter indicated the involved agency ( AAFES ) previously sent notice to me indicating the intent to collect the debt to include intercepting federal payments, including tax refunds. The original certified letter received from AAFES/XXXX made no mention of this and only addressed wage garnishment. Federal law under the Treasury Offset Program includes a Due Process prerequisite that requires a 60-day notice is provided to the debtor of the intent to offset as well as the opportunity to dispute the debt. I was n't provided notice of intent to offset. The notice I was provided did n't allow for due process and the 60-day requirement. And the dispute was acknowledged by AAFES and XXXX yet the offset still occurred ( ATTACHED ).

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation