RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02073
INDEX NUMBER: 121.03
XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Ten days of leave charged to her between graduation from a technical
training course and her scheduled port call be restored.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was moved into a technical training class that started one week
earlier than the one for which she was originally scheduled and
graduated a week early.
She was unable to continue staying in the Temporary Lodging Facility
due to a 45-day limit.
If she had move off base, the government would have had to pay her per
diem. She chose instead to go to her husband’s residence in another
state.
AFI 36-2102, attachment 7, states that “No member will be in an
involuntary leave status for the convenience of the government.”
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_______________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant’s military records, 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 Field Operations Branch, AFPC/DPSFM, evaluated this application and
recommends that the applicant’s request be denied.
The applicant was charged leave from 16-25 Feb 01 because she departed
her duty station and went to her husband’s residence in another state.
The reference to AFI 36-2102, Attachment 7 is not pertinent to her
situation since she is a regular officer on active duty.
AFI 36-3003, Military Leave Program, paragraphs 4.11.10, Proceed Time
and 4.11.11, Travel Time with En Route Leave, specifically states that
Finance Service Officers will compute leave for authorized absences in
excess of allowed proceed time and will also charge leave for any
authorized absence in excess of allowable travel time and proceed time,
if applicable.
The applicant does not indicate that she made any attempt to have her
port call date accelerated based upon her early graduation, nor does
she indicate that she requested any advice from the commander or
military personnel flight regarding her situation. Instead, she, of
her own volition, made a conscious decision to leave her duty station
and travel to another state. She acknowledges that she could have
remained at her duty station and moved downtown (with full Per Diem
authorized). Contrary to the applicant’s contention, she was charged
leave because she departed her duty station as a convenience to
herself, thus she was not forced into involuntary leave.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19
Oct 01 for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has
not been received.
_______________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission 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 their rationale as the basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
_______________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 this application in
Executive Session on 28 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Jul 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSFM, dated 11 Oct 01,
W/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 19 Oct 01.
TERRY A. YONKERS
Panel Chair
According to JPPSO, the applicant’s HHG shipment exceeded the maximum authorized weight allowance and in accordance with paragraph U5340, JFTR, she is liable for all transportation costs arising from transportation of HHG in excess of the authorized allowance. The evidence of record indicates that the applicant, after the death of her husband, a former service member, shipped HHG from Virginia to Colorado with a net weight of 29,200 pounds, including 3,057 pounds for the shipment of a POV. ...
The information states that pets are permitted entry into the Azores provided they receive a certificate of rabies vaccination at least 30 days and not more that 12 months before departure. According to AFPC/DPSFM, the applicant was provided a copy of the PPCI, which clearly outlined the requirements for taking pets to the Azores. ROSCOE HINTON, Jr. Panel Chair AFBCMR 02-01379 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04911
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AF/A1PA recommends denial, stating, in part that in order for the applicant to receive the dependent allowances, the dependent must be "moving" in connection with the PCS from Sheppard AFB, TX to Maxwell-Gunter AFB, AL. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...
On 5 April 1990, applicant was appointed a 2nd Lieutenant, Medical Corp (MC), Reserve of the Air Force and entered an Air Force Health Professions Scholarship Program/Financial Assistance Program (AFHPSP/FAP) contract in which she agreed to serve on active duty for a specific period of time in exchange for the Air Force paying her educational expenses while in medical school. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In 1993, while stationed at Dover AFB, DE, she had an elective surgery procedure that was performed at the Malcolm Grow Medical Center (MGMC) at Andrews AFB, MD. Although the procedure was elective, she was placed on TDY orders and reimbursed for her travel expenses. It is further recommended that she be entitled to full reimbursement of travel expenses that she incurred which are normally authorized...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01244
His wife and son remained hospitalized until 20 September 2002 and the applicant was ordered to return to Malstrom AFB on 21 September 2002. Consequently, the applicant could have been authorized PTDY for the period that his wife was hospitalized: 4 through 15 July 2002. MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY Panel Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC [pic] Office Of The Assistant Secretary AFBCMR BC-2003-01244 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04576
CG B-202023, dated 4 Dec 1981, advises that civilian employees married to members of the uniformed services cannot each receive an entitlement for shipment of the same HHG. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03022
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03022 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be reimbursed $1,293.13 to offset Temporary Lodging Expenses (TLE) incurred with her Permanent Change of Station (PCS) assignment to Ramstein Air Base (AB), Germany. A request was submitted to the Secretary of the Air Force Financial...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02090
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPRRP also recommends that the applicant be compensated for five days of leave. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 11 Oct 02 for review and comment within 30 days. The Board agrees with the recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility to...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00855
The DPSFM evaluation is at Exhibit B. While on convalescent leave, the applicant went to the Bahamas for four days. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jun 03.