RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-04027
            INDEX CODE 121.02  128.02
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be compensated approximately $7,700.00 to  $12,100.00  in  lieu  of
unused In-Place Consecutive Overseas Tour (IPCOT) travel  entitlements
to fly him and his family from Clark AB, PI, to  his  home  of  record
(HOR) in Montgomery, AL.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unable to utilize the  consecutive  overseas  tour  entitlement
because of Mt. Pinatubo’s volcanic  eruption  in  Jun 91.  His  family
stayed with his parents. From May-Jul 91, he attended the NCO  Academy
at Kadena and in July 91 he returned to the US to  escort  his  family
back to Kadena. He reported to McChord AFB, WA on 18 Aug  91.  Due  to
unforeseen circumstances, he was unable to use this entitlement.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Members  and  dependents  eligible  for  IPCOT  travel  benefits   are
authorized travel  and  transportation  allowances  for  leave  travel
between authorized locations and may travel together or independently.
An  authorized  destination  is  the  member’s  HOR  or  an  alternate
authorized place to which travel is no more expensive than to the HOR.
If travel to the selected  alternate  place  is  more  expensive  than
travel to the HOR, the  member  is  financially  responsible  for  the
additional cost unless travel to the more expensive alternate place is
authorized/approved by the Secretarial process.  In  1991,  the  Joint
Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) allowed the member one  year  to  use
the entitlement between tours and, if not used in the  timeframe,  the
entitlement expired.

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of master sergeant.

The applicant entered an IPCOT in Oct 90 at Clark AB, PI,  making  him
eligible for travel and  transportation  allowances  for  himself  and
family to travel from Clark AB to his HOR, Montgomery, AL.

In May 91, he was selected to attend the  Air  Force  NCO  Academy  at
Kadena AB, Japan.  While there, Mt. Pinatubo erupted on  15 June  1991
and his family was evacuated from  their  off-base  residence  in  the
Philippines and transported back to the US. He graduated from the  NCO
Academy on 10 Jul 91.

The applicant was not allowed to return to the Philippines but, on  31
Jul 91, was allowed to travel to  the  US,  retrieve  his  family  and
return to Kadena AB. However,  after  traveling  to  the  US,  he  was
diverted to a new assignment at McChord AFB, WA, effective 18 Aug  91.
The applicant’s IPCOT entitlement lapsed in Oct 91, one year after  he
became first eligible.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAF/DPPCC advises that, according to Title 37, USC, Section  411b,
members and their eligible  dependents  must  use  their  IPCOT  leave
within one year of entering the IPCOT. If the IPCOT travel is not used
within the established timeframe, the entitlement is  lost.  As  such,
they cannot recommend a legal remedy for the Board to  provide  relief
in this case.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provides a narrative of the events. Mt. Pinatubo erupted
while he was at the NCO academy and he was never allowed to go back to
the Philippines.  Before he was slated for his next duty  station,  he
learned his off-base residence in the Philippines had been broken into
and  all  his  possessions  stolen.  He  experienced  all  manner   of
difficulties in filing claims for his loss. With  all  the  turbulence
going on requiring his immediate attention, his IPCOT  leave  was  the
last thing on his mind. He asks the  Board  not  make  the  regulation
verbiage the only basis  for  its  decision.  He  provides  copies  of
undated letters to his Congressman and the McChord Claims Office,  and
a request for extended base billeting.

A copy of the response received by the AFBCMR Staff, with attachments,
is at Exhibit D.

In a letter dated 16 Mar 04, the AFBCMR Staff  advised  the  applicant
that page 2 of his rebuttal  letter  was  missing.  He  was  asked  to
provide a copy of the missing page as well as more specifics regarding
the amount of “monetary compensation” he is requesting and the  number
of dependents he had at the time.

A copy of the AFBCMR letter is at Exhibit E.

The applicant provided the second page  of  his  rebuttal  letter  and
advised in his cover letter that  the  cost  of  four  travelers  from
Okinawa to Montgomery via Seattle is $12,064.00, and to Montgomery via
Los Angeles is $8,792.00. Either of those  rates  would  be  agreeable
with him. He adds that the GSA City Pairs rate  round  trip  for  four
from Manila to Montgomery would be $7,648.00.

The applicant’s additional response, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAF/JAA contends the applicant is requesting monetary compensation
for the IPCOT benefit he never used. The  intent  of  the  COT  Travel
Program is to allow members and  their  dependents  respite  from  the
overseas area prior  to  entering  into  a  new  tour.  Based  on  the
provisions of Title 37, USC, Section 411b (as worded in 1991) and  the
JFTR in effect in 1991, the applicant’s IPCOT travel benefit could not
have extended beyond one year, even if properly deferred. Further, JAA
has not located any provisions expressly stating that  IPCOT  benefits
lapse at the commencement of the tour following the IPCOT.  Therefore,
the  applicant’s  IPCOT  travel  eligibility  ended  in  Oct  91.  JAA
concludes that providing monetary compensation to the applicant  would
constitute a windfall because he suffered no out-of-pocket loss  as  a
result of missing the IPCOT travel.  Monetary  compensation  does  not
accomplish the purpose of the IPCOT travel program, which is geared to
give members a break in between tours; and he only served 10 months of
his IPCOT before it was curtailed. His request for compensation should
be denied.

A complete copy of the additional evaluation is at Exhibit G.

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

The applicant insists his case should be  seen  from  his  perspective
given his extenuating circumstances (volcanic eruption and  issues  he
faced upon his arrival at  McChord  with  his  family).  There  is  no
guidance regarding processing such claims when a member’s  ability  to
use the [IPCOT] entitlement is interrupted by a natural disaster.  The
monetary award he is asking for is an entitlement that he  earned  but
did not get an opportunity to use. While he concurs that the intent of
the program is not to provide monetary compensation, the Board  should
factor in the extenuating circumstances which each of the offices that
responded  to  his  petition  failed  to  mention  or  acknowledge  in
providing their response to his claim.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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. After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded he should be given a monetary compensation in lieu of unused
IPCOT travel.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we
do not find these  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air  Force.  The
statute in effect at the time stipulated the IPCOT  entitlement  would
be lost if not used within the established time frame.  The  applicant
had between Oct 90-Oct 91 to use his IPCOT travel benefit. Granted, Mt
Pinatubo’s eruption in Jun 91 disrupted part of  that  time.  However,
the applicant did not suffer an out-of-pocket expense in not using the
benefit. He has not established that he was  treated  any  differently
than other individuals impacted by similar circumstances. In our view,
granting his request would wrongfully hold the Air Force culpable  and
constitute a monetary windfall not afforded individuals in  comparable
situations. We therefore agree with the  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our  decision
that the applicant has not sustained his  burden  of  having  suffered
either an error or an injustice. In  view  of  the  above  and  absent
persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 14 July 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member
                 Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-04027 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Nov 03.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ USAF/DPPCC, dated 5 Feb 04.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Feb 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Feb 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Mar 04.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Mar 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ USAF/JAA, dated 19 May 04.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Jun 04.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair