RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03748
            INDEX NUMBER:  128.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  5 Jun 07


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reimbursed a total of $14,598.50 for permanent change of station
(PCS) and storage expenses incurred from Jul through Nov 04  resulting
from his projected assignment to Combined  Forces  Command—Afghanistan
(CFC-A).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The commander of CFC-A required, requested, and subsequently  verbally
confirmed his assignment to the commander’s staff for a  12-month  PCS
to fill significant shortfall in CFC-A political-military operations.

His supervisor secured approval from the Chief of Staff (CSAF) for his
assignment to Afghanistan.

He hopes  his  28  Sep  05  memo  makes  it  clear  his  actions  were
appropriate, professional, and conducted in good faith considering the
unfortunate circumstances.

In support of his appeal, applicant submits a copy  of  correspondence
between the Pentagon Transportation Manager and AF/ILGD concerning his
request for reimbursement, a four-page memo prepared by  him detailing
the events leading to his request for reimbursement, a  letter,  dated
18 Apr 04, from the Commander, Combined Forces Command  Central  Asia,
requesting help in identifying an “outstanding senior Foreign  Service
officer  to  fill  an  upcoming  vacancy,  copies  of  e-mail  traffic
discussing the applicant’s possible  assignment  to  Afghanistan,  and
copies of paperwork detailing the expenses incurred by the applicant.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According  to  the  Military  Personnel  Data  System  (MilPDS),   the
applicant retired from active duty  in  the  grade  of  Colonel  (O-6)
effective 31 Dec 05.  The applicant’s duty title in his final job  was
Deputy Foreign Policy Advisor to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Air Force Colonel Management Office (AFCMO) recommends  denial  of
the applicant’s request for reimbursement.   They  note  there  is  no
statutory authority  to  reimburse  the  applicant  for  his  expenses
incurred while relocating his  household  goods  (HHG)  prior  to  his
assignment being confirmed or orders issued.  The Joint Federal Travel
Regulation,  Paragraph  U5305  states  “A  member  is  authorized  HHG
transportation or Non-Temp Storage  when  the  member  is  ordered  to
perform a PCS move.”  Therefore, no entitlement to  move  his  HHG  at
government expense existed.  The Air Force has no statutory  authority
to reimburse expenses for which no entitlement exists.

AFCMO also notes in the facts section of  their  evaluation  that  the
applicant became aware of  an  opportunity  for  a  one-year  tour  to
Afghanistan and began working with individuals in that office  for  an
assignment.  They further note that AFCMO  did  not  receive  any  Air
Force requirement for  the  position  and  had  no  knowledge  of  the
position  until  the  applicant  called.   Upon  being  called,   they
investigated the position and found it to be a position for  a  Marine
officer, not an Air Force colonel.  The applicant decided not to renew
the lease on his quarters based on the assumption he would  be  picked
for the assignment.  The applicant  was  advised  that  no  orders  or
letter could be accomplished until the assignment had been  loaded  in
system.  He was also advised  the  Air  Force  had  not  received  any
tasking for  the  position  the  applicant  was  interested  in.   The
applicant decided to go ahead and procure transportation  on  his  own
and assumed he would be reimbursed once his PCS orders were processed.
 AFCMO stresses that at no time did they inform the applicant  he  was
on  assignment  to  Afghanistan  or  that  an  assignment   would   be
forthcoming.  AFCMO notes that after  no  request  for  an  Air  Force
colonel from the tasking organization and no action to convert the  US
Marine Corp position to an Air Force position, they ceased all actions
in response to requests  from  the  applicant.   AFCMO  states  it  is
important to note that the entire assignment action was promulgated by
the applicant.  The applicant worked  the  assignment  and  apparently
made poor decisions that an assignment would be forthcoming despite no
assurances from their office that an assignment was in work.

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
13 Jan 06 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, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the
primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant believes  his  actions
were reasonable given the support expressed by senior level management
for his assignment.  He further indicates that the Air  Force  OPR  is
defending the “bureaucratic process” of assignments  and  “wrongfully”
assumes the process happens the same  way  every  time,  without  ever
encountering unusual or unique circumstances.   However,  by  his  own
statements, he understood  the  importance  of  any  assignment  being
worked through the system in  place.   Although  the  genesis  of  the
assignment  may  have  been  outside   normal   assignment   channels,
nevertheless, it  was  required  that  the  assignment  be  officially
approved through established channels before official orders could  be
issued.  While the applicant may have believed the  assignment  was  a
fait accompli, in our view, the evidence of record only indicates that
individuals  in  his  chain  of  command  were   supportive   of   his
reassignment, not that they guaranteed it.  The applicant  appears  to
want this Board to believe that the stopper on his assignment was  the
failure of the Air Force Senior Leadership Management Office  (AFSLMO)
and others in the assignment process to understand the  unique  nature
and urgency of his assignment and the  necessity  of  dispensing  with
business as usual.  However, noticeably absent from his application is
any direct evidence from his chain of command stating their belief  he
has suffered an injustice because they led him to believe he was being
reassigned and that the Air Force failed to carry out their  expressed
orders to  get  it  done.   The  applicant  indicates  that  conscious
decisions were made not to get the Chief of Staff  of  the  Air  Force
involved in the process.  However, it  would  seem  that  the  prudent
course of action may have been to do so since the proposed  assignment
was to a billet outside of the Air  Force  and,  essentially,  brought
about by the applicant’s decision  to  volunteer.   While  regrettable
that the applicant has suffered financial hardship as a result of this
action, based on our reading of the evidence of record, we believe  he
bears the  primary  responsibility  for  the  position  he  now  finds
himself.  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 Docket  Number  BC-2005-
03748 in Executive Session on 22 February 2006, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
      Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Nov 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, HQ USAF/AFCMO, dated 19 Dec 05,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jan 06.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 6 Feb 06.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair