RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02030
INDEX CODE: 128.14
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) entitlement be changed to
reflect BAH rates of his previous duty station or his primary
residence, rather than his new duty station.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He only changed his duty station because he was involved in a
Reduction in Force, (RIF) action that forced him to either lose his
job or accept a new job at a different duty station. He requested a
waiver of his BAH for Low/No-cost Permanent Change of Station (PCS),
but the waiver was denied.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of RIF
documentation, his BAH waiver request, and an Active/Guard Reserve
(AGR) order amendment.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant, an active duty member of the California Air National Guard
(CAANG), was issued a General Notice of RIF on 9 November 2004. The
RIF notice informed him that his position with the 234th Combat
Communications Squadron, Hayward, California was to be abolished,
effective 9 January 2005. He was offered an Intelligence Operations
Specialist position, also with the 234th but at a different location,
approximately 135 miles away. The new position’s military
compatibility was waived until he could become compatible or find
another position where compatibility was not an issue. He was told
that if he were to not accept the offered position, he would be
terminated on 9 January 2005 with entitlement to severance pay. He
was also notified of his eligibility for PCS entitlement. He accepted
the new position and commutes weekly to Beale AFB where he stays at
base billeting during the week and travels home for the weekends. He
requested a BAH waiver for Low/No-Cost PCS to retain BAH at the with-
dependent rate based on the dependent’s location, Hayward, CA. On 13
May 2005, his request for BAH waiver was denied.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ USAF/DPDFP recommends denial. DPDFP cites the SAF/MR policy letter
dated 4 March 2002, wherein the member does not qualify for BAH waiver
eligibility. BAH waiver consideration is only given when member’s
families are to be stabilized at their current residence while the
member performs a short PCS tour, or some other temporary or
restricted duty. In this case, the member resides at the billeting
location of his duty station while his dependent resides in housing at
his previous duty station. Further, his request based on Low/No-Cost
PCS is without merit as this type of PCS is only considered when the
distance between the old and new duty stations are within close
proximity of each other (both are ordinarily serviced by the same
local transportation system or a member could commute daily from home
to the new duty station). OSD BAH policy further defines 20 miles or
one hour as a reasonable commute. In this case he would not qualify,
as he would travel approximately 135 miles one way to get from home to
work that is neither safe nor reasonable.
DPDFP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
12 August 2005 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 its rationale as the basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice. The distance between his duty stations of 135
miles clearly prohibit him from qualification for a BAH waiver under
Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) U5355, and OSD BAH policy,
wherein distance between duty stations is limited to 20 miles or a one
hour commute time. 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-02030 in Executive Session on 25 October 2005, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ USAF/DPDFP, undated.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Aug 05.
JOHN B. HENNESSEY
Panel Chair
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100094C070208
Army officers attending the AWC received BAH based on their new duty location regardless of where their families resided. The applicant states that informal discussions with the Army action officers indicated that the Army was unwilling to change its policy in the students' favor without a statutory change to Title 37, U. S. Code, regardless of the other Services' BAH policies. The advisory opinion went on to note that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense published a policy on 26...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015179
The JFTR states that when Reserve Component (RC) Soldiers are ordered to active duty and a PCS order is not issued, BAH rate is based on the primary residence location at the time the Soldier was ordered to active duty. However, if the member is called or ordered to active duty and a PCS order is not issued, BAH/OHA rate is based (paid) on the primary residence location at the time called/ordered to active duty"; and c. there is no distinction made in the PPG or JFTR for AGR BAH when the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100136C070208
The applicant states that informal discussions with the Army action officers indicated that the Army was unwilling to change its policy in the students' favor without a statutory change to Title 37, U. S. Code, regardless of the other Services' BAH policies. The advisory opinion went on to note that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense published a policy on 26 June 2003 allowing the Service Secretaries a more flexible BAH policy when the members received PCS assignments of 12 months...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009768
He provides: * self-authored memoranda, subject: [Applicant], Request for BAH Waiver to Retain BAH at Current Duty Location, dated 20 March 2013 and 10 April 2013 * e-mail correspondence * BAH waiver request template * document entitled Instructions to Obtain a BAH Waiver for PCS * ALARACT 021/2008 * ALARACT 324/2012 * letter, dated 11 March 2013, regarding his son's standing as a student * Officer Record Brief (ORB) * orders * Military Leave and Earnings Statement CONSIDERATION OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100120C070208
Army officers attending the AWC received BAH based on their new duty location regardless of where their families resided. The applicant states that informal discussions with the Army action officers indicated that the Army was unwilling to change its policy in the students' favor without a statutory change to Title 37, U. S. Code, regardless of the other Services' BAH policies. The advisory opinion went on to note that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense published a policy on 26...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001513C070206
The applicant states that, upon arrival at the AWC, he learned that fellow Navy and Air Force students who had also elected to leave their families in the Washington, D.C. area were authorized by their respective services to retain BAH at the higher rate based on their family's location, not their present duty station. Army officers attending the AWC received BAH based on their new duty location regardless of where their families resided. The applicant states informal discussions with the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001513C070206
The applicant states that, upon arrival at the AWC, he learned that fellow Navy and Air Force students who had also elected to leave their families in the Washington, D.C. area were authorized by their respective services to retain BAH at the higher rate based on their family's location, not their present duty station. Army officers attending the AWC received BAH based on their new duty location regardless of where their families resided. The applicant states informal discussions with the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100095C070208
Army officers attending the AWC received BAH based on their new duty location regardless of where their families resided. The applicant states that informal discussions with the Army action officers indicated that the Army was unwilling to change its policy in the students' favor without a statutory change to Title 37, U. S. Code, regardless of the other Services' BAH policies. The advisory opinion went on to note that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense published a policy on 26...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004104876C070208
The applicant states that informal discussions with the Army action officers indicated that the Army was unwilling to change its policy in the students' favor without a statutory change to Title 37, U. S. Code, regardless of the other Services' BAH policies. By memorandum dated 29 August 2002, the applicant and 24 of his classmates requested support from the Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 in obtaining Service Secretary waiver to receive BAH at a rate other than their new PDS. The advisory...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004103190C070208
On 26 June 2003, the Principal Deputy, Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) signed a memorandum allowing Service Secretaries to grant BAH waivers for service members attending PME for 12 months or less. The advisory opinion went on to note that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense published a policy on 26 June 2003 allowing the Service Secretaries a more flexible BAH policy when the members received PCS assignments of 12 months of less for PME. The Secretary of the...