RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03613
            INDEX CODE:  113.04
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 MAY 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) date, incurred due to a  Permanent
Change-of-Station (PCS), be changed from 29 Jun 06 to 31 May 05.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He requested and received a Basic Allowance for  Housing  (BAH)  waiver,  he
did not move household goods or change residences for the PCS,  and  he  did
not receive dislocation allowance as the PCS was no-cost.

In support of his request applicant provided a copy of his  BAH  waiver  and
PCS order.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant entered active duty on 31  May  00.   He  has  been  progressively
promoted to the grade of captain, having assumed that  grade  effective  and
with a date of rank of 31 May 04.  Per Special Order AM-820,  dated  27  Apr
04, applicant was ordered PCS from the Pentagon, VA, to  the  694  IG,  Fort
Meade MD, with a report not  later  than  date  of  30  Jun  04.   His  ADSC
incurred as a result of his PCS move is 29 Jun 06.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAPB recommends denial.  DPAPB states proper protocol was followed  in
processing his assignment.  His assignment was not only outside a  corporate
city limit (permanent duty station definition in the JFTR), but between  two
different states.  Therefore, PCS  entitlements  exist  which  preclude  the
classification of  his  reassignment  as  a  No-cost  PCS.   Since  the  two
permanent duty stations are within close  proximity,  the  move  could  have
been made as a Low-cost PCS.  In order to be considered for a Low-cost  PCS,
the member has to specifically ask for  consideration  and  must  provide  a
written statement that he/she will not relocate their household if  provided
a Low-cost PCS.  This did not occur in his case.  Since his  assignment  has
consummated his original PCS orders can  only  be  changed  via  retroactive
amendments.  AFI 33-328 states  the  following  in  regards  to  retroactive
amendments, "Justify retroactive  amendments  to  orders  that  increase  or
decrease the amount of money due the traveler of  the  government.   Include
justification or  explanation  statement  in  the  remarks  section  of  the
amendment.  The justification or explanation statement used in  the  remarks
section of the amendment must clearly  show  that  the  original  order  was
unclear, incomplete, or lacked necessary information."

The Officer's Assignment Division that  made  his  assignment  handles  over
6,000 assignments a year.  They  do  not  have  the  manpower  and  time  to
manually review every assignment they make to determine if  someone  "could"
qualify for a Low-cost PCS.  Instead, it is incumbent  upon  the  member  to
ask,  in  advance  of  the  assignment   consummating.    However,   members
frequently are  not  aware  of  these  requirements.   In  his  case,  DPAPB
believes that had he asked in advance for a Low-cost PCS, his request  would
have been approved.

DPAPD does not support  approval  of  a  change  to  the  applicant's  ADSC.
However, DPAPD supports the approval of  retroactive  amendments  to  change
his PCS fund code from "E" (Operational PCS) to a "V" (Low-cost PCS).   Then
he would have sufficient grounds to petition AFPC/DPSCM for  change  of  his
ADSC.  The DPAPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

DPSCM recommends denial.  DPSCM states as a result of the PCS fund  code  on
his orders and PCS data loaded into MilPDS, he incurred the  appropriate  2-
year PCS ADSC in accordance with AFI 36-2107.  DPSCM corresponded  with  the
applicant via email between 4-7 November 2005 and directed him  to  get  his
orders amended in order to remove the current  PCS  ADSC  that  he  felt  he
should not have incurred since he did not file  a  travel  voucher  and  the
move was of no cost to  the  government.   Written  policy  and  Comptroller
General's guidance clearly defines that  his  Operational  PCS  can  not  be
classified as a No-cost PCS.  However, the PCS could  have  been  classified
as a Low-cost PCS had the proper steps taken place.   He  has  not  provided
sufficient justification or proper documentation to support his request.

The DPSCM evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded that he did ask for a fully-funded (Code E)  PCS  before
departure from the Pentagon with the understanding he would be privy to  all
the benefits therein.  He  was  not  told  in  any  forum  that  there  were
exceptions based on the close proximity of the PCS.  After his  orders  were
cut, the servicing TMOs he contacted relayed to  him  that  household  goods
storage was not authorized him since fully-funded PCS was considered "local-
area" PCS.  In other words, he needed to provide a terminating  address  for
a  point-to-point  move  at  his  appointment.   The  MPF  at  the  Pentagon
indicated before his PCS that obtaining  a  BAH  waiver  was  sufficient  in
order to not incur an ADSC for the move and that his orders did not need  to
be amended.  He found out later that this information was  false.   However,
incurring the ADSC was not critical to him  at  the  time  and  he  did  not
pursue a change after initially discovering it.  He would  not  have  chosen
to submit a BAH waiver if his PCS benefits were consistent  with  all  other
fully-funded PCS moves made during his career.  The Pentagon MPF  would  not
amend his orders from a Code "E" to a Code "V" after his PCS to Fort  Meade.


Regarding the DPAPB evaluation, applicant contends that proper protocol  was
followed in processing a fully-funded PCS; however, proper  procedures  were
not followed by his servicing MPF to amend his orders after his  BAH  waiver
was approved.  Furthermore, a local-area argument should be invalid  because
the move, a legitimate PCS, is between two  different  states  and  policies
therein should be consistent throughout.  In the very least, he should  have
been warned of such a "local-area" policy before choosing which PCS  program
he wanted to participate  in.   The  disparity  between  TMO's  "local-area"
policy and the DPAPB comments on state-to-state PCS needs  clarification  as
the two greatly contradict each other.

His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or  injustice  warranting  corrective  action.   In  this
respect, applicant requests his ADSC incurred as a result of his 30  Jun  04
PCS move from the Pentagon to Ft. George Meade, MD be changed  from  29  Jun
06 to 31 May  05.   He  contends  that  because  he  did  not  relocate  his
household or  receive  dislocation  allowances  his  PCS  should  have  been
classified as a "No-Cost" PCS, which would not have imposed an ADSC.   After
a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant's  submission,
it appears that while conditions existed at the time of his PCS  move  which
precluded the classification of his  assignment  as  a  "No-Cost"  PCS,  his
assignment did in fact meet qualifying  criteria  for  classification  as  a
"Low-Cost" PCS.  While the standard procedure for identifying an  assignment
as "Low-Cost" requires the member to request such  classification  prior  to
the consummation of the  assignment,  we  believe  had  the  applicant  been
properly informed of the various entitlements associated with PCS  moves  he
would have done so.  Accordingly, it is our opinion that his records  should
be corrected to show that his PCS assignment was classified as a  "Low-Cost"
PCS and that the ADSC incurred as a result of his PCS assignment  should  be
removed.  Therefore, we recommend his  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:

a.  His AF Form 899, Request  and  Authorization  for  Permanent  Change  of
Station - Military, dated 27 April 2004, be corrected in item 21,  Authority
and PCS Code, to reflect PCS ID "V," rather than "E."

b.  His Active Duty Service Commitment be changed to  reflect  31 May  2005,
rather than 29 June 2006.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2005-
03613 in Executive Session on 16 Mar 06, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member
      Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member

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

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Nov 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPB, dated 15 Dec 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSCM, dated 20 Jan 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jan 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 31 Jan 06, w/atchs.




                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
AFBCMR BC-2005-03613




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:

            a.  His AF Form 899, Request and Authorization for Permanent
Change of Station - Military, dated 27 April 2004, be corrected in item 21,
AUTHORITY AND PCS CODE, to reflect PCS ID "V," rather than "E."

            b.  His Active Duty Service Commitment be changed to reflect
31 May 2005, rather than 29 June 2006.







                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency