. 

# 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-00442 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction 
of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A 
Stat 116),  it is directed that: 

.. 

of  the  Departmeat of the  Air  Force  relating to- 
e corrected to show that he had no other alternative but to 
mercial  travel  office  (CTO)  not  under  contract  to  the 
Government and that he was authorized to purchase airline tickets  and rental  car expenses and 
that he  is authorized reimbursement of the cost of the airline tickets and rental car expenses in 
the amount of $388.73. 

I/ Director 

G 
C/ 

Air Force Review Boards Agency 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  9 7 - 0 0 4 4 2  
COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

DEC 6 4 13$L 

APPLICANT REOUESTS: 
Reimbursement  for airline tickets  ($147  and  $ 7 9 )   purchased  and 
rental cars  ( $ 2 9 . 8 1   and  $ 1 3 2 . 9 2 )   for a total of  $ 3 8 8 . 7 3   used  in 
the line of duty (incident to temporary duty  (TDY) )  . 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
Reserve Orders  (ROs) 094  and  0 9 5   authorized travel payments far 
in  excess  of  what  actual  travel  costs  were  incurred  and  the 
travel costs are not being reimbursed.  He performed two tours of 
duty  for which auto travel had  originally been authorized.  He 
purchased airline tickets at his own expense through a civilian 
travel  agency  at  significant cost  saving  to  his  unit  over  the 
auto expense and the government airline cost.  During his tours 
of  duty, a notification was  sent to his unit  advising the unit 
that such transactions would not be reimbursed.  His orders were 
amended by his unit to reflect payment for those expenditures to 
no  avail. 
Reimbursement  for  legitimate  authorized  expenses 
incurred  in  the  line  of  duty  has  been  refused  based  upon 
notification  received after  the  expenses had  been  incurred  and 
the duty performed.  Such action after the fact is a fraudulent 
cost  savings  to  the  government  at  the  abusive  expense  of  the 
member  incurring the expense in good  faith.  Notification after 
the  fact is not  adequate legal notification of  a regulation or 
law that has been promulgated but has either been overlooked by 
precedent or not been made adequately clear and public, and makes 
such a  law or regulation non-binding and unenforceable prior to 
adequate, clear, and public notification. 

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

! 

AFBCMR 97-00442 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Documentation provided by  the applicant reflects that on 10 Jul 
96, by RO 094, he was ordered to active duty for three days' TDY 
to  Ft.  Sill, Oklahoma, reporting on  21 Jul  96.  The  estimated 
cost on AF  Form  938  (Request and Authorization  for Active  Duty 
Training/Active  Duty  Tour)  reflected  $344  with  TR  cost  not  4 
applicable  and  reimbursement  of 
transporation  expenses 
necessarily incurred in tkie  conduct of officia)  business in and 
around TDY station was authorized. 
On 10 Jul 96, by -, 
the applicant was ordered to active duty 
for two days'  TDY to Offutt AFB, Nebraska, reporting on 26 Jul 
96.  The estimated cost on AF  Form  938  reflected  $132  with  TR 
cost not applicable and reimbursement of  transporation expenses 
necessarily incurred in the conduct -of  official business in and 
around TDY station was authorized. 

On  16 Jul  96,  the applicant purchased  tickets for a round trip 
from St. Louis to Omaha, Nebraska, on Transworld Airline for $79 
and round trip between St. Louis and Oklahoma City on Southwest 
Airlines for $147 from a non-contract commercial travel office! 

On  1 Aug  96,  by 
applicant I  s  orders  were  amended  to 
.  Louis  to Oklahoma  City  and  return as 
include TR  cost  f 
$140 and by RO 116, applicant's orders were amended to include TR 
cost from St. Louis to Omaha and return as $150. 
On  21 Aug  96,  DD  Fm  1351-2  (Travel  Voucher  or  Subvoucher) 
reflected  the  applicant  was  paid  $63.20  and  $128.35, 
respectively, for a total of $191.55. 

On 28 Aug  96, by 
orders  were  ame 
authorized as more advantageous to the government. 

respectively, the applicant's 
hire  of  special  conveyance 

m, dated 19 Mar 97, indicated that the applicant should be 

A  statement provided  by the Comptroller, CAP-USAF, 
reimbursed for the  full $388.73  (a,irline tickets and rental car 
expenses).  The Comptroller stated that, while she understood the 
justification of the decision made by the Comptroller General on 
reimbursements of  this nature, the message was not generated by 
Air  Reserve  Personnel  Center  (ARPC)  until  22 Jul  96. 
The 
applicant purchased his ticket prior to that date  (16 Jul 96) in 
good faith and therefore should be  entitled to be  grandfathered 
for allowable reimbursements (see Exhibit C) . 

2 

AFBCMR 97-00442 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Chief, Financial Services Division, AFRC/FMF, reviewed this 
application  and  indicated  that,  in  accordance  with  JFTR, 
Volume 1 ,  paragraph  U3 120 -A,  in  arranging  official  travel , 
personnel are authorized to use the following in accordance with 
service regulations: 

1.  Commercial travel offices  (CTO) under  contract to  their 

respective organizations; 

4 

2 .   In-house travel offices; and 
3 .   General  Services Administration  (GSA) Travel  Management 

Centers  (TMC) . 
Except  as  indicated in  subparagraph-B, when  a member purchases 
transportation from a CTO not under contract to the government, 
reimbursement  is not  authorized  unless  it  can  be  demonstrated 
that  the member  had  no  alternative.  The  travel  regulation  is 
specific  in  not  allowing  purchase  of  air  transportation  from 
other than Government Contract Ticketing Offices or directly from 
airlines under contract with the government. 

-_ 

While the applicant references a message  received on 23 Jul 9 6 ,  
which addressed reimbursement for airline tickets, the regulation 
in question had  been  in effect prior  to  1995.  They recommend 
disapproval of the claim for reimbursement. 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 
2 Jun 97  for review and response.  As of this date, no response 
has been received by this office. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 
2 .   The application was timely filed. 
3.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
reviewing the evidence provided with this appeal ,  which includes 

3 

AFBCMR 97-00442 

the statement from the Comptroller, CAP-USAF, it appears that the 
message  generated by ARPC  relating to  reimbursement claims  for 
airline  tickets  not  obtained  through  a  Government  contracted 
travel office was not originated until 22 Jul 96.  The applicant 
purchased his tickets prior to that date on 16 Jul 96.  Although 
the Air Force indicated that  the regulation had  been  in effect 
prior  to  1995, we  believe  that  applicant purchased  his  tickets 
and  rented  the  rental  car  in  good  faith  as  a  one-time  cost 
savings to the government and that he should be reimbursed these 
expenses.  Therefore, we recommend that the records be corrected 
as indicated below. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT? 

- 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected 20 show that he had no other 
alternative  but  to  purchase  transportation  from  a  commercial 
travel office  (CTO) not under contract to the Government and that 
he  was  authorized  to  purchase  airline  tickets  and  rental  car 
expenses and that he is authorized reimbursement of the cost of 
the  airline  tickets  and  rental  car  expenses  in  the  amount  of 
$388.73. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 4 November 1997, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. LeRoy T. Baseman, Panel Chairman 
Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Member 
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member 
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner  (without vote) 

All  members voted  to correct  the  records, as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, CAP-USAF/FM, dated 19 Mar 97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFRC/FMF, dated 9 May 97. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 

\ 

c 

-

&d5-% 

LeROY 
Panel 

T. Chairman 
BASE 

/

 

4 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

AIR UNIVERSITY (AETC) 

f 

MEMORANDUM FOR HQ ARPC/DSZ 

Attn:  Mr. John Egolf 
6760 E. lrvington PL MOO0 
Denver CO  80280-4000 

FROM: CA%USAF/FM 

105 South Hansel1 Street 
Maxwell AFB AL 361 12-6332 

19 March 1997 

tr, dtd 11 Mar 97)  (Atch 1 w/backup) 

. 

I have personally reviewed the facts and circumstances surrounding 
correction of military records and reimbu  ement for $79.00 under Reserve Order Number m A t c h  2)  and 
$147.00 under Reserve Order Number&Atch 

3) for a total of $226.00 for4Birline expenses. e 

request for a 

-has 
for a total rental car expense of $162.73.  (Atch 4) 

also requested reimbursement for rental car expenses in ti%  amount of $29.81  and $132.92, 

I have also reviewed subject guidance from HQ ARPC Denver CO, dated 22 Jul 96 (Atch 5) with respect to 
the Comptroller General's decision on reimbursement for airline tickets procured from non-government 
sources. 

It is my decis 
oul 
cit 
car expenses 
understand the justification of the decision ma 
urchased his ticket 
nature, the message was not generated by ARPC until 22 Jul96. 
prior to that date (16 Jul 96, Atch 6) in good faith and therefore should be entitled to be grandfathered for 
allowable reimbursements. 

I  am s u r e d l ( l l l l l f u l l y   understands the current rules of engagement and will not purchase any 
airline tickets in the future from a non-govemment source for the performance of official Air Force duty. 

requests, such as chronology of events, prior to denying claims of similar circumstance. 

has had to go through a laborious paper-writing campaign to re-coup what is 
in the future that finance offices will review &I facts surrounding any such 

If  you have any questions or comments, please call me immediately at (334) 953-64934~ (DSN) 493-6493. 

Attachments a/s 

Cc: CAP-USAF/IM 

CAP-U SAF/N CLR 
Major Moehlmann, Ill 

Comptrolldr,  AP  SAF V

J

A

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

AIR FORCE RESERVE COMMAND 

MEMORANDUM FOR  MBCMR 
FROM:  1-14 AFRCIFMI; 
155 2nd Street 
Robins AFB GA 3 1098-1635 

SUBJECT:  Correction of Military Records - ( A N  36-2603) 

We have considered the member’s claim for $226.00 for air transportation incident to 

temporary duty (TDY) in July  1997.  IAW JFTR, Volume 1, Paragraph U3 120-4  in arranging 
official travel, personnel are authorized to use the fol!owing  in accordance with service 
regulations: 

1. Commercial travel ofices (CTO) under contract to their respective organization; 

2. in-house travel oflices; and 

3. General Services Adiniiiistration (GSA) Travel Management Centers (TMC) 

Except as indicated in subpar. B, when a member purchases transportation from a 

CTO not under contract to the government, reimbursement is not authorized unless it can be 
demonstrated that the member had no alternative. 

.. 

The travel regulation is specific in not allowing purchase of air transportation from other 
than  Government Contract Ticketing Ofice  (CTO) or directly from airlines under contract with 
the government. 

The member purchased tickets for a round-trip between St. Louis and Omaha, Nebraska 

on Trans World Air Lines for $79.00  and  round-trip between St. Louis and Oklahoma City, 
Oklahoma on Southwest Air Lines for $147.00 on 16 July 1997, from a non-contract commercial 
travel ofice.  Also, the member made reference to a message received on 23 July 1996 which 
addressed reimbursement for airline tickets.  The regulation in question had been in effect prior to 
1995. 

Based on the reasons cited above, this ofice recommends disapproval of the claim for 

reimbursement.  Please address any questions to Starlac Hatcher,  HQ AFRC/FMFQ, 
DSN: 499-1436. 

2 

JkkRIANNE WERNER 
Chief, Financial Services Division