j U L   2 3  8% 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02495 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His records be corrected to reflect that he was entitled to Safe 
Haven benefits until 11 Dec 96, rather than 18 Oct 96. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

His benefits were  terminated  earlier than they  should have  been 
because  of  the  inaccurate  information  him  and  his  spouse  were 
provided. 

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  supportive 
statement  and  other  documents  associated with  the  matter  under 
review. 

Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A .  

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Information extracted  from  Personnel Data  System  indicates that 
the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of 
staff sergeant. 

The  relevant  facts pertaining  to  this  application are  contained 
in  the  letter  prepared  by  the  appropriate  office  of  the  Air 
Force.  Accordingly,  there  is no need  to  recite these  facts  in 
this Record of Proceedings. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Military  Compensation  &  Legislation  Division,  USAF/DPPC, 
reviewed this application and recommended denial.  DPPC noted the 
applicant's  allegations  that  decisions  made  as  a  result  of 
improper  counseling,  along  with  a  lack  of  appropriate 

reimbursements to meet required expenses, caused his family great 
financial hardship.  More specifically, he indicated the Randolph 
TMO and Family Support Center told his spouse she was eligible to 
request and  accept  a  shipment  from nontemporary storage without 
it  affecting  her  eligibility  to  receive  Safe  Haven/Designated 
Place benefits. 

According  to  DPPC,  the  Joint  Federal  Travel  Regulation  (JFTR), 
paragraph  U6005-E  states  that  per  diem  allowance  at  the 
designated  place  will  terminate  at  2400  hours  on  the  day  the 
dependents first occupy the permanent residence or at  2400 hours 
on  the  30th  day,  whichever  is  earlier. 
Criteria  used  to 
determine what  is meant by  lroccupy permanent residence"  include : 
statement of  member/dependents  that  the  residence will  be  used 
until  member's next  PCS;  length  of  lease  or  other  agreement; 
children in school; turning on utilities in member's/dependent's 
name; or former residence is occupied.  If none of  these apply, 
once household goods  (HHG) (other than unaccompanied baggage) are 
delivered, then permanent residence is occupied.  There was some 
initial confusion on the part  of  evacuated  families as to which 
criteria would  actually  terminate  their  entitlements.  The  Air 
Force,  in  conjunction  with  the  Army,  adopted  the  most  liberal 
criteria : 
This  criteria 
coincided with  what  families had  originally been  briefed  while 
still ir, Saudi Arabia and is printed  on the 5 Oct  96 Designated 
Location Memorandum.  The applicant's spouse accepted shipment of 
household goods  from nontemporary storage on 18 Sep  96.  At  the 
time, she was  in a  Safe Haven  status, as opposed to Designated 
Place  status,  and  should  not  have  been  allowed  to  receive  a 
household goods shipment. 

acceptance  of  household  goods. 

DPPC indicated that the intent of  designated place allowances is 
to help defray the costs of locating and establishing a permanent 
residence at  the designated place.  Family members  are expected 
to  occupy  a  permanent  residence  as  soon  as  possible. 
Upon 
occupancy of the permanent residence, designated place allowances 
( p e r   diem  and  local  travel)  terminate  and  normal  allowances 
associated  with  a  PCS  move  begin  (i.e., Dislocation  Allowance 
when  all dependents arrive at  the  designated place  and Variable 
Housing  Allowance  when  dependents  occupy  the  permanent 
residence).  Additionally, sponsors continue drawing their basic 
allowance  for quarters  (BAQ)  and  family separation allowance I1 
(FSA-11) to help pay the living expenses of their family members. 

Effective  3  Sep  96,  all  Department  of  Defense  (DOD)  family 
members in safe haven status or in authorized delay  (except those 
joining their  sponsor on an accompanied  tour) ,  were  directed  to 
move  to  a  designated place  as  soon as practical, but  not  later 
than 18 Oct 96.  When the applicant's spouse accepted delivery of 
household goods  from nontemporary storage on  18 Sep  96, she was 
still in a Safe Haven status.  A s   such, there was no entitlement 
to  receive  household  goods. 
The  entitlement  to  Safe  Haven 
benefits,  therefore,  continued  until  she  converted  to  a 
Designated  Place  status. 
Since  she  had  already  received 

2 

AFBCMR  97-02495 

household goods on the  date she entered Designated Place status 
on  18  Oct  96,  all  Safe  Haven/Designated  Place  entitlements 
stopped. 

DPPC stated that  the repatriation of  families from Saudi Arabia 
was a unique situation involving complicated entitlement  issues. 
The applicant did experience unnecessary hardship as a result of 
miscounseling  and  delayed  receipt  of  entitlements  for  30  days. 
Although they realize these were trying times f o r   his family, in 
DPPC's  view,  they  can  find  no  reasons,  based  on  Safe 
Haven/Designated  Place  provisions  in  establishing  a  permanent 
residence, to extend entitlements beyond 18 Oct 96. 

A complete copy of the DPPC evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant  indicated  that  if  him  and  his  spouse  had  received 
accurate  facts concerning the  receipt of  household goods, their 
actions  would  have  been  radically different.  They  listened  to 
the rules, took actions based on those rules, and then were told 
that the original rules were wrong.  He  should not be  penalized 
nearly $2,000 because of someone else's lack of knowledge.  They 
are not  trying  to put  one  over on  the  government.  They  simply 
would  like  to  be  paid  the  Safe  Haven  benefits  for  the  period 
19 Oct 96.  During  this  period,  his  wife  had  to  buy  all  the 
things necessary for day-to-day living that were  in the shipment 
which  arrived on 11 Dec  96.  She had  to buy  these things after 
the benefits were already cut off. 

Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E. 

THE  BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1.  The applicant has exhausted ail 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  facts and  circumstances of  this  case, it  appears 
that  the  applicant  and  his  wife  may  not  have  been  properly 
advised during the evacuation and repatriation of dependents from 
Saudi  Arabia,  resulting  in  a  financial  burden  to  him  and  his 
family.  In our view, any doubt regarding this matter should be 
resolved  in  favor of  the  applicant.  Accordingly,  we  recommend 
that the applicant's records be  corrected to reflect that  he was 

3 

AFBCMR 97-02495 

entitled  to  Safe  Haven  benefits  until  11  Dec  96  rather  than 
18 Oct 96. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of  the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that his request for 
Safe Haven allowance(s) for the  period  19 Oct  96  to  11 Dec  96, 
was approved by competent authority. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 19 May  98, under the provisions of AFI  36- 
2603 : 

Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member 
Mr. Robert W. Zook, Member 

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

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Aug 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ USAF/DPPC, dated 3 Oct 97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Oct 97. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 31 Oct 97.  (-- 

Panel C h a w  

4 

AFBCMR 97-02495