RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01672
            INDEX NUMBER:  128.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX   COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  1 Dec 07


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be paid authorized allowances for the period of 4 Aug 04 to Sep 05
based on his family’s stay in Belgium while he was deployed to Korea.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His family was relocated to Belgium on permanent  change  of  station
(PCS) orders while he was given orders to Korea.   When  he  inquired
about follow-on orders for him to  Belgium,  he  was  told  he  could
secure them once he was in Korea.  When his family  reached  Belgium,
they were totally on their own without command sponsorship  and  were
not compensated during their stay.  When his wife went to the finance
office, she was told that the codes  for  them  to  receive  overseas
entitlements had to be activated in Korea, while he was told that the
entitlements could not be activated.

Prior to his family’s departure from his stateside assignment,  their
household goods were approved for storage at  government  expense  by
the Traffic Management Office  (TMO).   However,  he  was  told  that
because of his grade, he would not be allowed to drive in Korea.   As
a result, he was not allowed to ship their  privately  owned  vehicle
(POV) to either Korea or Belgium.  Instead, the car  remained  parked
at their expense in the long term parking lot  at  Travis  Air  Force
Base.

The applicant recounts some of the expenses encountered  by  him  and
his family.  He states that their household goods need to be  shipped
from Belgium to their stateside assignment.

He and his family were given the wrong information.  The  individuals
responsible for authorizing the orders and tickets for  him  and  his
family to be relocated should be held accountable for the money he is
owed because his family was moved to an overseas location.  No matter
what people may accuse him and his family of doing, they cannot  make
the PCS orders and flight tickets disappear.

In support of his application, applicant provides copies of  his  PCS
orders, bills incurred by his family in Belgium, and  copies  of  his
2004 leave and earnings (LES) statements.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to  information  in  the  Military  Personnel  Data  System
(MilPDS), the applicant retired from the Air  Force  effective      1
Jul 06 in the grade  of  technical  sergeant  (TSgt).   According  to
documents provided by the applicant, per Special  Order  dated      3
Aug 04, he was assigned to Korea with a report not later than date of
15 Aug 04.  The orders reflected that his spouse  and  two  dependent
children were located in Belgium and that two  stepchildren  were  at
another location.  Per Special Orders dated 15 Jul 05, the  applicant
was reassigned to the Continental United States (CONUS) with a report
not later than date of 15 Aug 05.  The orders reflected that a spouse
and two dependent children were located in Belgium.  Additional facts
relevant to this case are contained  in  the  Air  Force  evaluations
found at Exhibits C and E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAP recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  At the  time
the applicant’s orders were published on 3  Aug  04,  his  dependents
were already located in Belgium and at the time of his departure  for
his assignment in Korea, the applicant had  failed  to  apply  for  a
follow-on assignment.

The applicant never requested  that  his  dependents  be  allowed  to
travel to Belgium under  the  Designated  Location  Move  Program  in
accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-3020, Family Member  Travel,
the Joint Federal Travel Regulation, Volume I, paragraph U5222D1d(2),
and  Department  of  Defense  Instruction  1315.18,  Procedures   for
Military Personnel Assignments.  The Secretarial process only  allows
for the return of foreign-born  dependents  to  the  spouse’s  native
country  when  documented  evidence  shows  that   due   to   unusual
circumstances or  conditions  the  spouse’s  native  country  is  the
appropriate location for the dependents to reside during the  service
member’s unaccompanied overseas assignment.

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
21 Jul 06 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, AFPC/DPAPP  provided  an  additional
evaluation of the applicant’s request.  They  continue  to  recommend
denial of the applicant’s requests.  In addition to  the  information
provided at Exhibit C, they note that the applicant was authorized to
complete circuitous travel to  Belgium  enroute  to  Korea,  not  his
dependents.  The applicant states that his dependents proceeded under
the circuitous travel provision.  However, they note that this is not
true because Korea was a dependent restricted tour.  AFPC/DPPAP  also
includes copies  of  emails  they  opine  “shed  some  light  on  the
deceptive  nature”  the  applicant  and  his  spouse  have  exhibited
throughout this situation.  They believe  these  documents  show  the
applicant and his spouse  made  a  conscious  decision  to  move  the
dependents to Belgium based on their desires without concern for  the
prior approval needed.

The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Additional Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 22 Sep 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 basis for our conclusion that the  applicant  has  not  been  the
victim of an error  or  injustice.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2006-
01672 in Executive Session on 31 October 2006, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Martha J. Evans, Panel Chair
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 May 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 14 Jul 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jul 06.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 15 Aug 06,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Sep 06.




                                   MARTHA J. EVANS
                                   Panel Chair