RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03436
            INDEX CODE:  121.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

26 days of leave be restored to her leave account  for  the  following
dates:

          a. One day for the period 21 December 2002.
          b. Nine days for the period 22 December to 30 December 2002.
          c. Four days for the period 31 December  2002  to  3 January
             2003.
          d. Two days for the period 29 January  2003  and  4 February
             2003.

In addition to the above, she requests  10  house-hunting  (Permissive
TDY – PTDY) days be reinstated, her PTDY start  date  be  adjusted  to
ensure her three days of travel time are not  included  in  the  PTDY,
include any leave she lost as a result of all the changes made to  her
leave account, and to be put on active status  beginning  3  May  2003
until disposition of an injury she incurred while on terminal leave.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her duty section  was  given  a  week  off  over  the  Christmas  2002
holiday’s (no leave charged).  She contends she left the area  on  the
22nd of December 2002 and returned on 30 December 2002.  Consequently,
she was erroneously charged leave for the period 21 December 2002 to 3
January 2003 even though she had not submitted a leave  slip  and  she
was, in fact, present for duty (PFD) for the period 31  December  2002
to 3 January 2004.  Additionally, she was charged leave for 29 January
2003 and 4 February 2003 when she was  actually  PFD  except  for  the
weekend between the two  dates.   She  contested  the  leave  she  was
charged and, with no documentation of any kind,  HQ  ANG/FM  processed
the leave against her.  ANG/OM adjusted her terminal  leave  resulting
in early termination of her tour without notifying her until  a  month
after the termination action was taken.

She contends her travel days,  as  authorized  by  separation  orders,
should be 25 to 27 February 2003.  Her PTDY should be 28 February to 9
March 2003, and her terminal leave should be 10 March to 18 May  2003.


She was injured on 3 May 2003 while she considered herself on terminal
leave.  As it stands, because she was incorrectly charged  for  leave,
her terminal leave ended on 12 April 2003 instead of the 18  May  2003
date she believed to be  accurate.   When  she  injured  herself,  she
reported to an emergency  room  for  treatment  and  was  subsequently
scheduled for  future  appointments  including  a  magnetic  resonance
imaging (MRI) exam.  She found out she was no  longer  in  the  system
because her DOS had changed as a result of being charged the  disputed
leave.

In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided copies of several
pertinent email trails, dental records for 31 December 2002,  receipts
from various vendors, a  property  pass  for  a  laptop  signed  on  3
February 2003, leave and earnings statements  (LES’s),  leave  request
slips,  separation  orders,  correspondence  between   her   and   her
commander, traffic management office (TMO) paperwork, cell  phone  log
records, and medical record’s documenting her knee injury.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a former active  duty  member  of  the  National  Guard
Bureau (NGB), was scheduled for release from active duty  and  was  to
return to an ANG unit as  a  traditional  guardsman  effective  18 May
2003.  Leave is applied for and approved or denied by means of the Air
Force Form 988, Leave Request/Authorization.  On 21 February 2003, the
applicant applied for ten days of PTDY from 25  February  to  6  March
2003 and for Terminal Leave from 7 March to 18 May 2003 and the  leave
was approved as evidenced by AF Form 988’s.

The NGB charged her leave for  the  following  dates:  18-19  December
2002, 21 December 2002 to 2 January 2003, 29 January 2003,  4 February
2003, and 25 February to 12 April 2003 for a total of 66  days.   Only
the two AF Form 988’s submitted by the applicant on 21  February  2003
are accounted for in the above leave debits.

Her original request for PTDY and Terminal Leave were on  separate  AF
Form 988’s for ten days PTDY (leave approved by the commander but  not
debited against the leave account) from 25 February to  6 March  2003,
and for 73 days of Terminal Leave from 7 March to 18 May 2003.   There
is no other record of AF Form 988’s that show  any  of  the  remaining
leave was either applied for or approved/disapproved.  However, on  28
March 2003, five entries were made to the LEAVEWEB system debiting the
applicant’s leave account for the 66 days mentioned above.   Her  PTDY
was considered denied and her Terminal Leave was adjusted from 83 days
total to 53 days.  These debits adjusted her DOS from 18 May  2003  to
12 April 2003.  On 3 May 2003, she injured her knee  and  reported  to
the emergency clinic at Ft Leavenworth for  treatment.   She  was  not
eligible for further treatment as her DOS had changed from 18 May 2003
to 12 April 2003.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI states that because of the many conflicting  statements  from
the applicant and the NGB, DPPI  cannot  absolutely  conclude  whether
leave was appropriately charged for all periods.   However,  regarding
applicant’s statement that she and her  co-worker’s  were  afforded  a
week off with no leave charged over the Christmas 2002  holiday,  DPPI
contends that because she left the local area, the free Christmas week
did not apply.  Therefore, DPPI states nine of the twelve days charged
(31 December 2002 to 2 January 2003) were  valid.   As  the  remaining
three days cannot be accounted for, DPPI defer’s the  decision  as  to
whether or not the days were appropriately charged to the AFBCMR.

DPPI states that because of conflicting statements  the  two  days  of
leave charged the applicant of 29 January  and  4  February  2003  are
deferred to the AFBCMR for a decision as to whether or  not  the  days
were appropriately charged.

Regarding the issue of PTDY (ten days  of  leave  charged  within  the
period 25 February to 14 April 2003), DPPI notes there is no  evidence
in the LEAVEWEB system that the applicant  ever  applied  for  or  her
commander  ever  approved  PTDY.   DPPI  does  mention  email  traffic
indicating verbal conversations took place wherein the  applicant  was
made aware her PTDY had not been approved as she  was  separating  and
not retiring thereby removing her from PTDY eligibility.  As  she  was
not eligible for PTDY in accordance with Air Force  Instruction  (AFI)
36-3003, DPPI recommends her request to reinstate PTDY be denied.

Regarding applicant’s contention she was not made aware that  her  DOS
had changed, DPPI contends email traffic between the applicant and her
supervisor on 10 March 2003 indicates the  change  in  the  amount  of
leave charged to the applicant had changed her DOS to 12 April 2003.

DPPI recommends relief be denied for the nine days of leave  requested
by the applicant for the period 22 December to 30 December 2002.  DPPI
further recommends her request to have ten days of PTDY restored  also
be  denied.   Due  to  insufficient  documentation   and   conflicting
statements, DPPI  is  unable  to  reach  a  conclusive  recommendation
relating  to  the  remaining  six  days  of  leave  and   defer   this
recommendation to the AFBCMR.   DPPI  notes  that  should  the  AFBCMR
approve her request and grant the additional six days, her  DOS  would
still be prior to the date of  her  injury,  thereby  eliminating  the
possibility of medical hold entitlement.

DPPI’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant  disputes  the  ANG/DPPI  findings  and  states   that   her
application was received in December 2003 by DPPI and sat for over  10
months with absolutely no proof being provided by the NGB that she had
taken the leave they allege she had taken.   She  indicates  in  email
conversations between herself and DPPI that DPPI, in an email response
to the applicant in March 2003, stated “It has been difficult, to  say
the least, for me  to  get  sufficient  input  from  all  the  parties
addressed  in  your  (applicant’s)  DD  Form  149   (Application   for
Correction of Military Record).”  The NGB has  not  produced,  or  has
bothered to address, the lack of any leave slips or leave numbers that
show she took leave.  Nor have they identified how they came  up  with
the dates they accuse  her  of  taking  leave.   She  notes  the  only
evidence provided has been a LEAVEWEB report that shows  entries  that
were input into the system in April 2003, after she had left the NGB.

Regarding DPPI’s statement on the week of  leave  over  the  Christmas
holiday that was not to be charged, the  applicant  contends  that  if
AFI’s were followed  all  the  time,  there  would  be  less  need  of
corrections.  In this case, AFI’s were not followed  as  she  and  her
coworkers were instructed to fill out a leave slip for the time period
in case anything happened during the time they were gone.  If  nothing
happened then the leave slips were  to  be  destroyed  by  supervisors
after the holidays.  She presents information on how coworker’s  leave
was handled and cites dental and medical records as proof she  was  in
the local area during the times she was charged leave for  being  “out
of the local area.”

DPPI’s statement of deferral to the AFBCMR on her claim to  have  been
in the office preparing for a conference on the dates 29 January and 4
February 2003 is wrong as she provided proof she was in the local area
and not on leave.  She provides local receipts dated  over  this  time
period and military documentation showing her  household  goods  (HHG)
were packed on the 4th of February and shipped on the 5th of  February
2003.

Regarding her request to reinstate PTDY, applicant states she provided
actual AF Form 988’s showing her  PTDY  to  have  been  requested  and
approved.  She addresses DPPI’s contention she was  not  eligible  for
PTDY by regulation by stating she had conversations with her commander
and immediate supervisor regarding PTDY eligibility and was  told  her
commander would approve ten days of PTDY for house hunting.   She  has
the signed AF Form 988’s with leave  numbers  as  attachments  to  her
application.

Regarding DPPI’s contention that an email notified her of  the  change
in the amount of leave she was being charged and the resultant  change
to her DOS, she states that she was aware of the attempt to charge her
the leave but was surprised by the fact that even though  the  dispute
was ongoing, ANG/FM was allowed to debit her  leave  account  for  the
disputed days in the LEAVEWEB system.  She questions FM’s authority to
go into the system and debit her leave account while the dispute  over
the leave was ongoing.  She also questions how  her  supervisor  could
fax her new leave slips with  the  disputed  dates  on  them  for  her
signature and let FM charge her the leave without receiving the signed
leave slips.

In summation, she states the NGB had  her  application  for  over  ten
months and has provided no more documentation or evidence  that  leave
was taken than to use emails that she sent in as  attachments  to  her
BCMR application.  It is further apparent that her application was not
reviewed in detail by DPPI as the majority of  their  answers  to  the
apparent unanswered questions could have been found in the  supporting
documentation (17 attachments) to her original application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all 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 an error or injustice.  The applicant  contends  she  was
wrongly charged leave on several occasions leading up to her permanent
change of station (PCS) from her assignment with  the  National  Guard
Bureau (NGB) to the Oklahoma Air National Guard (OKANG).  The disputed
leave consequently shortened her date of separation (DOS) from 18  May
2003 to 12 April 2003 thereby removing her from active duty  prior  to
an injury she suffered while on terminal leave.  After careful  review
of all the information provided, other than for the period  22  to  30
December 2002,  we  can  find  no  documentation  that  indicates  the
applicant should have been charged leave for  the  days  in  question.
Therefore, we are of the opinion she should be reimbursed 10  days  of
leave for PTDY and 3 days of leave for travel that she was entitled to
and was approved by competent authority.  Additionally, she should  be
reimbursed for 1 day of leave charged for 21 December 2002, 4 days  of
leave for the period 31 December 2002 to 3 January 2003, and 2 days of
leave charged for 29 January 2003 and 4 February 2003, resulting in  a
reimbursement of 20 days of leave.  The additional 20  days  of  leave
will extend her DOS to 2 May 2003, prior  to  the  date  of  her  knee
injury,  maintaining   her   ineligiblity   for   medical   treatment.
Therefore, we recommend that the records  be  corrected  as  indicated
below.

______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that she was  not  released
from active duty on 12 April 2003, but was continued on active duty in
a terminal leave status until 2  May  2003,  on  which  date  she  was
released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve.

______________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 13 January 2005, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
      Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member

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

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jul 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 26 Oct 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Oct 04, w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair



                         DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
                                WASHINGTON DC

[pic]
Office Of The Assistant Secretary




AFBCMR BC-2003-03436




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:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that she was not
released from active duty on 12 April 2003, but was continued on
active duty in a terminal leave status until 2 May 2003, on which date
she was released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force
Reserve.







     JOE G. LINEBERGER

     Director

     Air Force Review Boards Agency