. 

I 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 96-02880 

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: 

ords of the Department of the Air Force relating to 
e corrected to show that fourteen (14) days of leave were added 
2 Oct 96; and, at the time of his release from active duty on 
24 Jan 97, in addition to any other leave he may have sold, he was authorized to receive a cash 
settlementfor an additional 14 days of unused accrued annual leave. 

UDirector 

Air Force Review Boards Agency 

. 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

JUN  1 2  1998 

DOCKET NUMBER:  9 6 - 0 2 8 8 0  
COUNSEL:  NONE 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

~ 

~~ 

Fifty-one (51) days of leave be restored to his leave account. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
While en route to his first permanent duty 
he requested a humanitar 
told by the personnel at 

ion of Air Base Ground Defense training at a 

in May 1993, he went to see h 
or a humanitarian assignment to 
because his dependent mother was sick and under 
The first sergeant told him he needed to go to 
get  the  paperwork  started.  He  asked what  wou 
process took longer than the ten days that he was authorized for 
leave between technical school 
first. duty station.  He 
was told that the personnel at 
ould amend h 
necessary.  When he arrived in 
he went  to 
and obtained the  forms to start the request for a 

.  He inquired at that time whether he  should contact 
and let them know he might be late, and he was told it 
was  not  necessary.  After  turning  in  the  paperwork  one  week 
r, he  again inquired about whether he  should contact 
.  was told that the Air Force would not pay to move him twice 

in one year, so he had to stay and wait for the approval. 

Approximately one week later, he was told to come in and get 
another  form  that  needed  to  be  filled out  by  the  doctor.  He 
returned this form to 
,  at which time they forwarded this 
letter  to where  his  original package  had  been  sent.  Finally, 
after  several  more  weeks,  his  request  f o r   a  humanitarian 
reassignment was denied. 

At  this  time  the  personnel  at 
amended  his  orders  to 
include his mother, and changed his report not  later than date. 
They advised him  to contact the Traffic Management Office  (TMO) 

, his 

Upon his arrival at 

to  arrange  the  shipment  of  his  household goods. 
took approximately another week. 
orderly room did not  know who he  was or why he 
explained the situation that had evolved, and they appeared upset 
that he had not contacted them prior to this.  However, at this 
time he was an airman basic, and was obeying instructions from a 
noncommissioned officer  (NCO) .  He  realizes today, as Lsenior 
airman, that  he  should  have  questioned  this, but  as an airman 
hat intimidated by NCOs. 
fresh out of training, he was st 
for  eighty-one  days. 
in 
He  also  realizes 
However, he went to 
appointments relating to 
for 
his humanitarian re 
d phoned daily. 
If he had realized 
the impact of this incident, he certainly would have handled the 
situation differently.  He admits he was a naive airman.  He was 
new to  the military, and  did not  know how to go about  getting 
t he thought was correct by listening to 
things done. 
By doing so,  he ended up forfeiting his 
the NCOs at 
leave for that period. 
In support of  his appeal, the applicant provided  copies of his 
permanent  change  of  station  (PCS) orders, amended  orders, and 
leave r.eport. 

Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Information  extracted  from  the  Personnel  Data  System  (PDS) 
indicates  that  the  applicant  was  assigned  to  the  Air  Force 
Reserve, Obligated Reserve Section, on 25 Jan 9 7 .   He was credited 
with 4 years of Total Active Federal Service. 
By  letter,  dated  8  Oct  9 6 ,   the  Commander's Programs  Branch, 
AFPC/DPSFC,  requested  that  the  applicant  provide  supporting 
statements  from  individuals  he  talked  to  and  who  advised  him 
regarding his application for a humanitarian assignment.  DPSFC 
also  requested  that  the  applicant  submit  documents  when  he 
requested a humanitarian reassignment and when it was disapproved 
by AFPC  (Exhibit B). 

In an undated letter, 
AFPC/DPSFC letter, which is attached at Exhibit C. 

the applicant provided  a response to  the 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Commander's  Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPSFC,  reviewed  this 
application  and  recommended  denial.  According  to  DPSFC,  the 
applicant's master  military  pay  account  showed  82  days  leave, 
29/May 93  to  18 Aug  93.  Applicant  enlisted  on  25  Jan  93  and 

2 

AFBCMR 96-02880 

normally would have been 
first permanent duty stat 
graduated from training a 
hile on le 
request for humanitarian reassignme 

ave en route to his 
He stated that he 

ersonnel at 

eks passed, his request was denied, and he reported to 

DPSFC indicated that the applicant responded to their request for 
more information and was unable to prdvide supportive statements 
or documents on his behalf.  AFI 36-2110, attachment A7.9. 10.3, 
states, in part, "the time between the request submission and the 
approval  authority  response  is  leave.''  Further, AFI  36-3003, 
paragraph  4, states,  in  part,  ''charge leave  when  members  are 
waiting  the  outcome  of  humanitarian  reassignment  requests." 
DPSFC  stated that  they  contacted the  humanitarian  reassignment 
office which  was unable  to  locate a  case  file due  to lapse of 
time.  Applicant did not file in a timely manner.  In this case, 
they cannot support granting relief as they cannot find the Air 
Force culpable. 
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSFC evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

A copy of the Air Staff evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 
10 Feb 97 for review and response.  As of this date, no response 
has been received by this office (Exhibit E). 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
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. 
Applicant  asserts that  he was  improperly advised concerning the 
action  he  should  have  taken  while  awaiting  the  outcome  of  his 
humanitarian request.  Therefore, he believes that the number of 
days from his original Report Not Later Than Date  (RNLTD) to his 
actual arrival date at his new duty station, a total of 51 days, 
should be  restored  to  his  leave  account.  We  find no evidence 
which supports his assertion, nor do we  find that  the applicant 
was charged leave contrary to governing regulation.  Also, in our 
view, despite his allegations, the applicant should have at least 
attempted to  contact  his  gaining  unit  regarding  his  situation. 

3 

AFBCMR  9 6 - 0 2 8 8 0  

Therefore,  we  believe  he  bears  some  responsibility  for  the 
resulting  consequences.  Accordingly,  we  are  not  inclined  to 
offer him total relief.  Notwithstanding the above, we do believe 
that he was the victim of an inordinate delay in the processing 
of his request.  Furthermore, as a young airman on his first duty 
assignment,. we believe  it is conceivable that  the applicant may 
have  been  naive  concerning the  ramifications  involved Ln this 
matter.  Therefore, to remove the possibility of an injustice, we 
believe  some  corrective  action  is  warranted  in  this  case. 
Accordingly, we recommend that 14 days of leave be added to the 
applicant's FY97 leave account. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be  corrected to  show that  fourteen  (14) 
days  of  leave  were  added  to  his  leave  account  commencing 
2 Oct 96;  and, at  the  time of  his  release from  active duty  on 
24 Jan 97, in addition to any other leave he  may have  sold, he 
was  authorized  to  receive a  cash  settlement  for  an  additional 
14 days of unused accrued annual leave. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 27 Jan 98, under the provisions of AFI  36- 
2603 : 

Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 
Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Member 

A11 members voted  to correct the records, as  recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Sep 96, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFC, dated 8 Oct 96. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, applicant, undated. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFC, 14 Jan 97. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 Feb 97. 

CHARLENE M. BRADLEY 
Panel Chair 

4