RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02061
INDEX CODE: 121.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His record be changed to show restoration of 22 days of leave charged
during fiscal year 2006 (FY06).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was charged for 22 days of leave due to a pending Exceptional
Family Member Program (EFMP) request for his daughter while Permanent
Change of Station (PCS) enroute from Kunsan Air Base in Korea to Eglin
AFB, FL.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided an email trail
and a copy of his PCS orders.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant, a current member of the Regular Air Force PCS’d from
Kunsan AB and arrived at Langley AFB, VA on 2 November 2005 to help
his family prepare for their PCS to Eglin AFB, FL. While at Langley,
his daughter became ill and needed the services of a specialist.
Eglin AFB notified him that the same type of specialist care was
available in Florida but was a 90-minute drive from Eglin AFB. The
applicant submitted an EFMP requesting reassignment to Langley AFB so
he could be close to his daughter’s specialist. The request was
forwarded to and received by the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) on
14 November 2005. An action officer was assigned to the request on 16
November 2005. Other assignment locations were being considered and
the process usually takes 14 days. On 22 November 2005, the EFMP
office was notified by Eglin personnel that the member was still
approved for travel to Eglin AFB and the member departed the Langley
area on 26 November 2005 bound for Eglin AFB.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSO recommends denial. DPSO states the member could have
proceeded to Eglin AFB as early as 2 November 2005 but decided to
readdress the issue with the EFMP office on 10 November 2005. After
reviewing his case, DPSO finds no error or injustice by the Air Force
causing the member to lose leave. He was charged leave from 7 through
25 November 2005.
DPSO’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 6
October 2006 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date,
this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an error or injustice warranting granting the applicant
restoration of 19 days of leave. The applicant requested restoration
of 22 days of leave, however, the office of primary responsibility
(OPR) determined he was charged only 19 days of leave during fiscal
year 2006 (FY06). We took particular note of the applicant’s
situation including experiencing a PCS off a remote assignment,
attending to and finding care for his ill daughter, and applying for
consideration under the EFMP. Documentation has been provided to show
that the applicant was not on leave on the days in question, but was
seeking support and answers from the Langley MPF, hospital and family
support office in trying to accelerate his EFMP package. It appears he
did everything he could do while at Langley AFB to ensure care for his
daughter and then report to Eglin AFB as he was expected to do.
Therefore, in view of the above and in order to preclude the
possibility of an injustice to the applicant, we recommend that 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 19 days of leave were
added to his leave account commencing 2 October 2006.
______________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-02061 in Executive Session on 29 November 2006, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Jun 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSO, dated 2 Oct 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Oct 06.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON DC
[pic]
Office Of The Assistant Secretary
AFBCMR BC-2006-02061
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 19 days of
leave were added to his leave account commencing 2 October 2006.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03070
In support of his request, applicant provided TDY and PCS orders, and leave documents. DPSO finds no compelling evidence suggesting the applicant was unable to take 21.5 days of leave throughout FY06 and concludes the leave lost was not an error or injustice caused by the Air Force. Since the applicant did not provide the additional information requested in order to sufficiently evaluate his claim, it is our opinion that no basis exists to grant his request.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01605
Additionally, paragraph 4.1.4, Use of Leave, recommends members be given the opportunity to take at least one leave period of 14 consecutive days or more each FY and encourages them to use the 30 days of leave they accrue each year. 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 and adopt its rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00586
During FY06, he earned 30 days of leave and used 23 days of leave. DPSO concludes the leave lost was not an error or injustice caused by the Air Force. We have noted the documents provided with the applicant’s submission; however, they do not, in our opinion, support a finding that the applicant was unable to take his accrued leave upon his return from deployment.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01122
The Board 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 (OPR) and adopts the OPR’s rationale as the basis for its conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03599
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Based on information from the Air Force, applicant’s Master Military Pay Account (MMPA) reflects applicant lost 10 days of leave at the end of FY06 (30 Sep 06). ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPS reviewed this application and recommended denial, stating in part, member’s application must...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02231
e. On 18 March 1968, the 14th Combat Support Group notified Chanute AFB that the applicant arrived at their station on 1 March 1968 and was present for duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS based on the limited documentation in the applicant’s master personnel records defers to the Board to determine if the requested relief should be granted. Nevertheless, after 38 years, and in view of the negative FBI report and the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00193
___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Air Force indicated that the applicant lost 7 days of leave at the end of FY 05. AFI 36-3003, Military Leave Program, note below Para 10.9.7, states, in part, that member’s application must clearly establish that an error or injustice by the Air Force caused the member’s lost leave. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03600
Although the member was deployed from January to May 2006, there is no compelling evidence or supporting documentation to show that the member was prevented from taking leave throughout FY06. The DPSO complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 5 January 2007, the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). After reviewing the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03601
With no evidence presented to support his claim, DPSO concludes that the applicant’s lost leave was not due to an error or injustice caused by the Air Force. We note the applicant’s contention that he was unable to use 5.5 days of leave due to mission requirements; however he has not provided letters of support from his chain of command or other evidence to support this assertion. After reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03006
The HQ AFPC/DPSOS’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/JA recommends the applicant’s nonselection for retention by the 6 June 2006 FSB be set aside and that she be considered by a special FSB selection board utilizing a corrected RRF. However, the majority of the Board believes that thorough and fitting relief in this case would be to correct her records to show that she was selected for retention by the 10 Apr 06 FSB, and to reinstate her to active duty. Accordingly, the...