RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02265
            INDEX CODE:  128.00

      XXXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  21 JAN 2009


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Household Goods (HHG) shipment entitlement  be  extended  after
her retirement of 1 Oct 03.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After retiring in Oct 03, she shipped 1000 pounds of  her  HHGs  to
her Home of Record (HOR).  She did not ship the rest  of  her  HHGs
(5000 pounds), because she was married to an active duty member and
they used the rest of the goods at  there  current  location.   Her
military spouse was subsequently reassigned and  the  rest  of  the
HHGs were shipped to  the  new  duty  location.   However,  due  to
unforeseen  circumstances,  she  will  soon  be  divorced  and  her
military spouse was reassigned to a new assignment, leaving  behind
her and her dependents.

She requests an extension to enable her to ship the balance of  her
HHGs to her HOR.

In support of  her  appeal,  applicant  submitted  a  copy  of  her
Retirement Order, AC-007839, dated 31 Mar 03; letter for request of
extension, dated  3  Jul  07,  and  letter  from  JPPSO-SAT,  dated
17 Jul 07.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was relieved from active duty  effective  30 Sep 03.   On
1 Oct 03, applicant was honorably retired under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-3203, in the grade of lieutenant colonel.  She was  credited
with 21 years, 1 month, and 21 days of active service.

After release from active duty, applicant made a  HHG  shipment  to
her Home of Selection  (HOS).   The  remainder  of  her  HHGs  were
consolidated with her spouse’s property and  moved  as  a  combined
shipment to the area upon her spouse’s permanent change of  station
(PCS).  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.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSOF reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial,
stating, in part, military personnel are entitled to  one  move  at
government  expense  to  a  HOS  for  one  year  after  retirement.
However, the law provides for  the  possibility  of  extending  the
entitlement beyond the one year point, based on  conditions  beyond
the control of the retiree.

The applicant used her entitlement to move her  HHGs  to  her  HOS.
Had she  not  elected  to  use  her  entitlement,  she  could  have
requested an extension prior to it expiring on 30 Sep 04.

HQ AFPC/DPSOF’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

JPPSO-SAT  reviewed  this  application  and   recommended   denial.
Applicant does  not  qualify  for  an  extension  of  her  shipping
entitlements because the entitlements were already utilized in  the
combined shipment during her military spouse’s PCS assignment.  Per
paragraph U5365-A, Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR),  when  a
member retires from active duty, HHG transportation  is  authorized
from the last or any combination thereof, to the member’s  home  of
selection (HOS).  Under the provisions of paragraph U5012-I,  JFTR,
a written time limit extension that includes an explanation of  the
circumstance 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.
The extension must be for the shortest time appropriate  under  the
circumstances and not be granted  merely  to  accommodate  personal
preferences or convenience.

In decisions B-181402, 10 Apr 75,  and  B-202023,  4  Dec  81,  the
Comptroller General concluded when uniformed  service  members  are
married to each other, both are entitled to separate  HHG  shipping
entitlements.  However, once the HHG shipments have  been  combined
for movement the government has but a single  financial  obligation
to move the shipment in one  lot  between  authorized  places.   No
further shipment is authorized until new orders are issued.

JPPSO-SAT’S complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reiterated her original contentions and provided  further
documentation to substantiate her appeal.   She  further  explained
why she believes the decisions cited by the  JPPSO-SAT  office  are
not applicable to her situation.

Applicant’s 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 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 opinions and recommendation of the
offices 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.  The  personal  sacrifice  the  applicant
contributed to her country is noted and  our  decision  in  no  way
diminishes the high regard we have for her  service.   However,  in
view of the above, we find  no  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-2007-02265 in Executive Session on 11 September 2007, under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
      Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
      Mr. Elwood C. Lewis III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jul 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOF, dated 19 Jul 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, JPPSO-SAT/CC, dated 31 Jul 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Aug 07.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Sep 07.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair