RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02156
            INDEX NUMBER:  128.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  7 Jan 07


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reimbursed $6,740.00 for housing set-up costs  at  his  overseas
assignment.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After reporting to a three-year permanent change of station  (PCS)  in
the Netherlands, government housing was  not  available  and  was  not
projected  to  be   available   within   the   first   eight   months.
Consequently, he was forced into a Dutch style home.   A  Dutch  style
home consists of bare concrete floors, walls painted to primer, and no
electrical   fixtures.    He   subsequently   expended   approximately
$6,740.00, based on the exchange rate in effect, to purchase materials
to prepare the house for occupancy.

While searching for adequate housing, he and his family, including two
children, lived in a hotel for nearly two months.   The  hotel  living
arrangements both distracted from his new  job  and  was  a  financial
burden.

His monthly lease amount for the Dutch style house  is  895  Euro  per
month.  His current maximum allowed BAH rate is 2050 Euro  per  month.
He estimates that over a three-year period, he will  potentially  save
the government a total of 41,580 Euro.

The  Move-In  Housing  Allowance  (MIHA)  of  $926  he  was  paid   is
inadequate.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a  copy  of  his  PCS
orders, the MIHA paid, a copy of his current lease, a letter from  the
housing office certifying his housing status, and a copy  of  receipts
for the claimed amount.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
major in an accompanied tour in  the  Netherlands.   Additional  facts
pertinent to this case are contained in the evaluation prepared by the
Air Force office of primary responsibility.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AF/DPDFP  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request.   The
applicant claims he was forced into a  Dutch  style  house.   However,
they do not find any evidence to support this claim.   The  regulation
in effect at the time the applicant relocated was  the  Joint  Federal
Travel Regulation (JFTR), Volume I, Chapter 9, Part B1.  In accordance
with the JFTR, members residing off base may be authorized  a  Move-In
Housing Allowance (MIHA).  There are three aspects to the MIHA:

        a.  MIHA Security.  An actual expense  component  that  covers
reasonable security  expenses  designed  to  minimize  exposure  to  a
terrorist threat.

        b.  MIHA  Rent.   An  actual  expense  component  that  covers
reasonable rent related expenses.

        c.  MIHA Miscellaneous.  A fixed-rate, lump sum that  reflects
average expenditures made by members to make their housing habitable.

The applicant received $926.00 in MIHA Miscellaneous.

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 5
Aug 05 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has
not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant  to  the  Board’s  request,  AF/DPDFP   provided   additional
information  regarding  the  applicant’s  application.    They   still
recommend denial.

There are three types of housing available in the Netherlands:

        a.  US Government Leases.  24  homes  serving  an  average  35
customers, with dependents only.

          b.  Dutch   Government   Rent   Controlled   Houses.    Very
inexpensive, but lacking  in  floor  coverings,  curtains,  and  light
fixtures.  Members could exceed MIHA entitlements bringing  this  unit
“up to standard,” but would  be  assured  of  “semi-controlled”  rent,
usually within a member’s overseas housing allowance  (OHA)  (Type  of
housing applicant moved into).

        c.  Free Sector  Housing.   Houses  generally  meet  standards
because landlords cater to the lessee’s standards/requirements.  Rents
are not controlled, so there is a risk member’s could  end  up  paying
out of pocket if they moved into one of these homes.

At the time of the applicant’s arrival, all of the  government  leased
housing was occupied.  He had a choice of either renting a free sector
house and, possibly, incurring out of pocket expenses during his  tour
or to rent a Dutch government controlled house  within  his  OHA,  but
without light fixtures, curtains, and floor coverings.

According to the housing officer, the  applicant’s  case  is  unusual.
Normally, US Government controlled housing is available  for  military
families.  OHA caps have since risen, so  larger  equipped  homes  are
within member’s OHA caps.  This was not the  case  in  2004  when  the
applicant arrived.

The Housing officer notes that when a lease  is  signed  for  a  free-
sector home, the  rental  price  increases  are  always  limited.   He
indicates they would never accept a contract that allows a landlord to
increase the rent at will.  Therefore, the risk of rent  increases  is
not as great as indicated in c above.

The additional information provided is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

A copy of the additional information received  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 25 Oct 05 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 error or injustice.  We took notice of
the applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the
case; however, the majority of the Board agrees  with  the  opinion
and  recommendation  of   the   Air   Force   office   of   primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the primary basis for our
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of  an  error
or injustice.  Additionally, the majority notes the  applicant  has
not provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that  his  only
option was to move into inadequate housing and spend the  money  he
did.  The applicant also has not explained what led him to  believe
he could spend the  amount  of  money  he  did  and  expect  to  be
reimbursed.  The majority further notes that the applicant makes an
argument that he will save the Government over the duration of  his
tour approximately 41,580 Euro, the difference between the Overseas
Housing Allowance (OHA) maximum and the monthly rental  amount  for
his quarters.  However, he does not present for comparison the cost
of any available Dutch semi-furnished (free  sector)  housing  that
met standards.  In the  additional  information  furnished  to  the
Board and applicant, it is noted that rent increases in free sector
houses are controlled and that the potential out of pocket  expense
to the applicant may have not been as great as he wants this  Board
to believe.  It is also pointed out that free sector rent  for  the
type of house required by the applicant averaged  1500  Euro  while
the OHA maximum was 1400 Euro.  The applicant  would  have  had  to
spend  approximately  an  additional  145  Euro  per  month  before
equaling the amount he spent to bring his present  quarters  up  to
standards.  The majority also recognizes that the argument has been
made that the applicant deserves relief  because  his  actions  not
only saved the government money but solved the more critical  issue
of getting he and his family into adequate housing.   The  majority
rejects this argument.  We do not believe it is practical to  allow
the applicant or any other individual similarly situated to  expend
funds under these circumstances with the expectation they  will  be
reimbursed by the Government when there is no policy or requirement
in place for such an action.  The majority believes that the  folly
of allowing  such  a  practice  is  readily  apparent.   While  the
majority regrets the applicant has incurred such a large  financial
expense, we do not believe that he has been the victim of an  error
or injustice wrought by the Air Force.  Therefore, in  the  absence
of evidence to the contrary, the majority of  the  Board  finds  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief  sought  in  this
application.

___________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the Board finds insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2005-
02156 in Executive Session on 11 January 2006, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to  deny  applicant’s  request.
Mr. Markiewicz voted to grant  the  applicant’s  requests  and  has
attached a minority report at Exhibit G.  The following documentary
evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Apr 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, HQ AF/DPDFP, dated 28 Jul 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 05.
    Exhibit E.  E-mails, HQ AF/DPDFP, dated 25 Oct 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Oct 05.
    Exhibit G.  Minority Report.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                 FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX

          In Executive Session on 11 January 2006,  we  considered  the
applicant’s request for reimbursement  in  the  amount  of  $6,740  for
expenses incurred in setting up his overseas housing.   A  majority  of
the Board voted to deny his request.  I disagree with their decision.

          I believe in reaching their decision, the majority has  given
too much weight to the fact that there does not appear to be any policy
in place to support reimbursing the  applicant  for  spending  his  own
money to provide suitable housing for his family and him.  The majority
also states  that  the  applicant  has  failed  to  provide  sufficient
evidence of efforts on his part  to  pursue  other  options  to  obtain
suitable housing.  In my view this case must be  evaluated  beyond  the
strict interpretation of existing policy.  I believe the  applicant  is
the victim of an injustice that requires us  to  totally  consider  the
circumstances of his situation.  The applicant was in a foreign country
accompanied by his family and in need of housing.  He  and  his  family
lived in a hotel for 30 days prior to  his  entering  into  the  rental
agreement and an additional 10 days before relocating, at great expense
to the Air Force.  The housing officer at his overseas  assignment  has
confirmed that the applicant’s situation was unique  in  that  suitable
housing was normally available for newly arriving families, but was not
when the applicant arrived.

          I believe the  evidence  of  record  substantiates  that  the
applicant’s actions were reasonable.  It should not be acceptable  that
a military member arrives at an overseas assignment accompanied by  his
or her family and is not provided suitable housing.  If  the  applicant
had been provided suitable housing, whether free sector  or  Government
leased housing, it would have cost the  Government  substantially  more
than the cost of his current housing.  I do not believe  the  projected
savings indicated by the applicant are insignificant.  Although he  did
not save the Government money within an established policy framework, I
believe a fair and practical view of his case  supports  that  he  took
reasonable measures to get he and his  family  into  adequate  quarters
within a reasonable timeframe and that as an  exception  to  policy  he
should be reimbursed for his expenses.

          It is my unacceptable for a member of our armed  services  to
expend over $6,000 to provide adequate housing for  his  family  at  an
overseas assignment, an expenditure of no long term  financial  benefit
to him and his family.  I believe under the circumstances of this case,
it constitutes an injustice.  I would grant reimbursement in the amount
of  $5,814.00.   I  strongly  urge  relief  be  granted  to  erase  the
injustice.




                       THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                       Chair
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                  FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
(AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency