Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-03447
Original file (BC-2006-03447.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03447
            INDEX CODE:  128.02

      XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  11 APR 2008


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Household Goods (HHG) shipment be extended after her retirement
of 1 Mar 99.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of her retirement, there were a few  things  preventing
her move from North Carolina to Texas.   Applicant’s  house  needed
major repairs, which was due to defects in the house  when  it  was
built, resulting in processing of a class  action  lawsuit,  to  no
avail.   Applicant  eventually  repaired   the   house   in   2004.
Applicant’s spouse separated from  active  duty  in  1992,  in  the
combat controller field, he  was  selected  for  a  position  as  a
contractor, and was transferred to a  new  position  in  Texas,  in
Dec 04.  Applicant’s states the job allowed them to eventually make
the repairs on the house,  and  move  to  Texas  without  incident.
Relocating in 1999 would have been catastrophic for  both  her  and
her family and was quite impossible.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was honorably retired on 1 Mar 99 under the provisions of
AFI 36-3203 in the grade  of  technical  sergeant.   She  completed
20 years and 19 days of active service for retirement.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

JPPSO-SAT/ECAF recommended denial,  stating,  in  part,  the  Joint
Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) indicates  a  member  who  retires
from active duty is authorized HHG transportation from the last  or
any previous duty station, from a designated place  in  the  CONUS,
from storage or any combination thereof, to the  member’s  home  of
selection (HOS).  Except  for  member  undergoing  hospitalization,
medical treatment, education or training,  or  in  other  deserving
cases, the HHG must be turned over for transportation within 1 year
following termination of active duty.

Under the provisions of paragraph U5012-I,  JFTR,  a  written  time
limit extension that includes an explanation of  the  circumstances
justifying the extension may be authorized/approved for a  specific
additional time period using  the  Secretarial  Process  only  when
circumstances prevented use within the prescribed time; must be for
the shortest time  appropriate  under  the  circumstances;  not  be
granted merely to accommodate personal preferences or  convenience;
and must not  be  authorized/approved  if  it  extends  travel  and
transportation allowances for more than 6 years from  the  date  of
separation or release from  active  duty  or  retirement  unless  a
certified on-going medical condition  prevents  relocation  of  the
member for longer than 6 years from the separation/retirement date.

In decision B207157, 2 February 1983, the Comptroller General  held
that Congress intended to retain the principle  that  travel  after
leaving service be the result  of  separation/retirement  from  the
service, since it is not  a  benefit  which  the  separated/retired
member retains until used regardless of circumstances.  Travel  may
not be extended for more than a total of  6  years  (including  the
first year after retirement) from the retirement/separation date.
The reasons cited for not relocating  during  the  prescribed  time
limit were to accommodate  personal  preferences  or  conveniences.
Additionally, she was released from active duty  28  Feb  99,  more
than six years ago.  Therefore, regulations prohibit  extension  of
her travel  and  transportation  entitlements,  regardless  of  the
circumstances.

The JPSSO-SAT/ECAF 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 1 Dec 06 for review and comment within  30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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
JPSSO-SAT/ECAF office 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.

___________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2006-03447 in Executive Session on 11 January  2007,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
      Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member
      Ms. Maureen B. Higgins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Nov 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, JPPSO-SAT/ECAF, dated 22 Nov 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Dec 06.




                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02343

    Original file (BC-2006-02343.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02343 INDEX CODE: 128.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 6 FEB 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His transportation entitlements be reinstated to allow a final move and shipment of his household goods (HHG). He completed 20 years of active service for retirement. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00633

    Original file (BC-2006-00633.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02941

    Original file (BC-2005-02941.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Prior to expiration of her travel and transportation entitlements on 31 Jul 01, she requested an extension of the time limit for educational reasons. Since 31 Jul 01, the applicant’s travel and transportation entitlements have been extended in one-year increments as a member undergoing education or training, and she has been informed the approval did not extend her NTS entitlement beyond 31 Jul 01. She was also informed this was the final extension she would be granted, as there was no...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02012

    Original file (BC-2004-02012.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Per JFTR paragraph U5012-I, a written time extension that includes an explanation of circumstances justifying the extension may: 1) be authorized/approved for a specific additional time period using the Secretarial Process; 2) be authorized or approved only when circumstances prevent use within the prescribed time, and must be for the shortest time appropriate under the circumstances; 3) not be granted merely to accommodate personal preferences or conveniences (DoD/CG #99-1); and 4) not be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02814

    Original file (BC-2005-02814.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The entitlement begins on the date the orders are issued and terminates one year from the date of termination of active duty. However, evidence shows the applicant agreed to have his HHG shipped to Lancaster, CA, upon his separation from active duty and subsequently requested an extension of storage until 23 December 2005. Therefore, 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00637

    Original file (BC-2006-00637.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00637 INDEX CODE: 128.00 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to repay all charges associated with the nontemporary storage (NTS) and have his shipping entitlements reinstated so he can reship his household goods (HHG) at government expense. Therefore, we agree with the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03655

    Original file (BC-2005-03655.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ECAF states the applicant retired from active duty on 31 January 1992, and the reason he did not relocate within the one year following termination of active duty was not due to an unexpected event beyond his control, but due to his decision to obtain employment in the local area of his last duty station. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 16 Dec...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03660

    Original file (BC-2006-03660.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03660 INDEX CODE: 128.14 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 2 JUNE 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reimbursed for moving his dependents and household goods (HHG) more than a year before he was issued Permanent Change of Station (PCS) orders. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02265

    Original file (BC-2007-02265.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After retiring in Oct 03, she shipped 1000 pounds of her HHGs to her Home of Record (HOR). On 3 Jul 07, applicant submitted a request for extension of the time limitation for her retirement due to unforeseen circumstances; however JPPSO-SAT/ECAF-B denied her request. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02486

    Original file (BC-2005-02486.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    An extension of the time limit would apply only for the amount of time the member was confined in a medical facility or deemed to be unable to travel due to medical reasons that occurred during the first year. An extension of the time limit would apply only for the amount of time the member was confined in a medical facility or deemed to be unable to travel due to medical reasons that occurred during the first year. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force...