RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00610
            INDEX CODE:  128.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His overseas station allowances be reactivated effective December  1996  and
he  receive  retroactive  payments  at  the  with-dependent  rate.   In  the
alternative, applicant requests he be authorized  to  receive  the  overseas
station allowances effective immediately.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) was drafted to  provide  services
the latitude to compensate members under  various  conditions  in  order  to
preclude a decline in living  standards  regardless  of  elected  assignment
status   to   include   maintenance   of   two   households.    AFPC/DPAIP's
interpretation of the JFTR was enacted  upon  with  the  most  stringent  of
guidelines.  AFPC does not  make  the  best  application  of  the  rules  in
determining OCONUS dependent location COLA allowance to serve  all  members'
requests or needs.  The matter of dependent nationality and location  should
serve as premise for station allowance as  it  would  for  any  OCOUNS  COLA
location.  He submitted a request to receive the station allowances but  his
request was denied.  He discussed the matter with Navy  personnel  who  have
led him to believe that his request should have been granted.

In support of his request applicant provided copies of email  communications
and  documents  associated  with  this  application  for  continued  station
allowance.  His complete submission, with attachments is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on
1 Sep 78.  He was progressively promoted to the grade  of  master  sergeant,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Aug 94.

While stationed at Kadena AB, Japan, the applicant  received  an  assignment
to Keflavik NAS, Iceland.  On 8 Apr 96, he  requested  permission  to  leave
his dependents in Japan and that he continue to receive  station  allowances
in accordance with the  JFTR,  paragraphs  U5222F3,  U9100C2,  U9100C3,  and
U9301B.  His dependent spouse is a Japanese citizen and at the time did  not
have a U.S. passport or citizenship.  On 5 Aug 96,  AFPC/DPAIP1  denied  his
request because it did not meet the requirements of the JFTR.

The remaining 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 at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAPP1 reviewed applicant's  request  and  recommends  denial.   DPAPP1
states that  the  applicant  was  projected  for  reassignment  to  Keflavik
Iceland and elected to serve the 12-month unaccompanied tour  on  the  basis
his spouse is a Japanese citizen and his children are enrolled in the  local
school system.  His request  for  continuation  of  station  allowances  was
disapproved on the basis he had the option to serve the accompanied tour  in
Iceland.  He submitted a reconsideration request based on  a  cost  analysis
comparison.  Budget officials  reviewed  his  request  and  the  disapproval
remained firm.  Upon completing his tour in Iceland, he  served  a  24-month
unaccompanied tour in Germany and is now assigned at Yokota AB serving a 24-
month unaccompanied tour.  Disapproval of his request  was  consistent  with
the rules of the Dependents Remaining Overseas Program  and  the  provisions
of the JFTR.  DPAPP1 recommends denial of his request  for  current  payment
of station allowances at the with-dependent rate because  he  is  unable  to
serve the accompanied tour due to high-year-of-tenure restrictions.

The DPAPP1 evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that AFPD 36-30 states that  a  compensation  and  benefits
package should be equitable, fiscally responsible, and recognize the  unique
conditions of service.  It further states  that  an  equitable  compensation
and benefits package should prevent a decline in members' living  standards,
maintain  pay  comparability  with  the   private   sector,   and   maintain
reimbursements at levels equal with expenses incurred incident  to  military
service.  These references should have been considered when his request  was
submitted.   His  situation  was  not  unimagined  by  the  Per   Diem   and
Transportation and Allowance Committee as reflected by the  verbiage  within
the JFTR.  The guidance addressing continuation of  station  allowances  for
members electing to go from an accompanied tour  to  an  unaccompanied  tour
does not dictate any prerequisites.  The paragraph does  not  say  that  the
entitlement  should  be  disallowed  because  the  member  elected   to   go
unaccompanied.  His appeal should have been  elevated  sooner  to  highlight
the possible  disparity  of  entitlements  afforded  Air  Force  members  in
relation to other components by the enactment of the policies  contained  in
AFI 36-3020.  He does not believe this index  has  developed  a  transparent
and  responsive  station  allowance  program  as  AFPD   36-30   stipulates.
DPAPP1's guidance has taken the monetary allowance entitlement process  from
the comptroller's sphere of expertise and framed it  into  the  non-monetary
benefits and entitlements arena.

Today, if his dependents relocated to a  CONUS  location  he  would  receive
single rate COLA for his duty  location  based  on  their  ZIP  code.   DFAS
should equally as well be able  to  initiate  payments  for  his  dependents
residing in Okinawa.

In further support of his request applicant provided a  personal  statement,
copies of email communications; an excerpt from AFI 36-3020,  Family  Member
Travel; an excerpt from AFPD 36-30, a DRO Fact Sheet, an  excerpt  from  the
JFTR, and a website printout.  His complete  submission,  with  attachments,
is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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  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.   In
this respect, it appears that the decision to travel unaccompanied  was  his
choice and evidence has not been provided which would  lead  us  to  believe
that his unaccompanied travel was  due  to  extenuating  circumstances  that
were beyond his control.  We see no  evidence  that  the  standards  of  Air
Force policy were not appropriately applied in this  case  or  that  he  was
treated differently than others  in  similar  situations.   The  Board  also
noted guidance established by PACAF regarding the DRO program  which  states
that approval is authorized  only  when  delay  of  dependent  departure  is
necessary for reasons beyond the member's or dependent's control.   Examples
provided include illness or hospitalization of the dependent, completion  of
a school term, lack  of  acceptable  housing,  or  difficulties  related  to
securing transportation for dependents of  household  goods.   We  note  his
contention that information he received from Navy personnel has led  him  to
believe that his  request  should  have  been  granted.   However,  we  feel
compelled to note that policies of different services may  differ  based  on
the particular mission needs of each respective service.  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 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  Docket  Number  02-00610  in
Executive Session on 1 Aug 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
      Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Member
      Mr. William H. Anderson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Feb 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPP1, dated 15 Mar 02.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Mar 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Jun 02, w/atchs.




                                   JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                   Panel Chair