RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03571 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted an extension of travel and transportation benefit beyond his six year release from active duty date. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Waivers should be used if the justification is reasonable and being a 26 year veteran and 7 year civil service employee should have some weight on the factors and reviews. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 30 November 2006, the applicant was relieved from active duty and retired on 1 December 2006, in the grade of master sergeant under the provisions of AFI 36-3203 (Sufficient Service for Retirement). He served 25 years, 11 months and 19 days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Personal Property Activity (PPA) Headquarters recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. PPA states per Special Order AC-006052 dated 16 March 2006 the applicant was released from active duty for the purpose of retirement effective 30 November 2006. The order provided authorization for travel and transportation entitlements to a Home of Selection (HOS) with a time limit of one year past date of termination of active duty. The applicant requested and received extensions to the one year time limit for travel and transportation entitlements. The extensions were granted through HQ AFPC/DPSIAF, then through PPA HQ/ECAF-B after assumption of the authority to grant extensions. PPA HQ/ECAF-B letter dated 10 November 2011 granted an extension of travel and transportation entitlements through 30 November 2012, and also advised the applicant that it would be his final extension. The applicant sent emails in December 2012 and January 2014 requesting additional extensions due to challenges in getting things done in the aftermath of hurricane Sandy, and problems with the purchase of a home. PPA HQ/ECAF-B letter dated 22 August 2014 denied the applicant’s request, advising that the JFTR stipulated that an extension must not be authorized if it extends the travel and transportation entitlements for more than 6 years from the date of separation or release from active duty and since it had been 8 years since his retirement, he had utilized all available extensions. The applicant’s request for additional extensions past the six years does not appear to meet the intent of the extension program - that the entitlement maintains its character as being related to retirement from service and not a benefit that is retained until used, and that it be based on an event beyond the member’s control that prevented the use of the entitlement. While we very much appreciate the applicant’s service to the country through his military and civil careers, he has not presented any evidence to show that an error has been made or an injustice has been committed. A complete copy of the PPA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A home is not a purchase you buy on impulse. He put down a deposit on a home, but the owner kept the home contract in legal knots. After purchasing the house the previous owner dragged out the process on an escrow account from the home for six months. He had to go to court to finally settle. He spent over $14,000 to move and drove across country with a trailer. He is asking for consideration of recouping cost that would have been paid by the Government if he shipped HHG. He served proudly for 26 years plus 7 years as a civil service employee working for the Air Force. Rules are rules, but all rules can be waived. The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03571 in Executive Session on 30 April 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03571 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 August 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Record. Exhibit C. Letter, PPA HQ/ECAF, dated 9 October 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 February 2015. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 March 2015, w/atch.