RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04558 

 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He receive Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) payment for the 
period from 15 June 2010 through 07 December 2010. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was denied BAH payments for the period during basic military 
training (BMT) and while he was a technical training school 
pipeline student. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals 
(DOHA) stated that he lived at his uncle’s home during that 
timeframe. This was incorrect as evidenced by amended orders he 
received from his unit subsequent to the DOHA ruling. After the 
DOHA ruling, he discovered the unit finance office had his 
original enlistment documents proving he changed his address, 
but they never processed them nor informed the Defense Finance 
and Accounting Service (DFAS) offices and DOHA of this fact. 
This led to the erroneous DOHA ruling. Because of this error 
and the false contention that he did not provide proof that he 
was paying his rent for the period from 15 June 2010 through 
07 December 2010, he was denied BAH. After he discovered the 
overlooked enlistment documents and following the DOHA ruling, 
his wing commander gave a directive for the BMT order to be 
amended and directed the finance office to review his BAH claim 
but they never reviewed his claim. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal 
statement as well as copies of documents extracted from his 
military personnel records and other supporting documents. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Air 
National Guard on 9 March 2010. He is currently serving in the 
grade of senior airman (SrA) E-4. 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

USAF/A1PA recommends denial. A1PA states the applicant’s 
application is not supported by convincing evidence that he had 
a continuing obligation to pay rent to his cousin from the time 
he was called to BMT and technical training school in June 2010 
through December 2010. His cousin’s tax record excerpt does 
not, on its face, show any reference that the applicant was, in 
fact, the source of a rental payment that he reported. 
Additionally the “Rental Contract” document reflects an amount 
of “$xxx.xx.” This contract fails to specify any amount for 
rent. The USAA letter showing account transfers is dated 
27 April 2011 and references variable account numbers and 
amounts. There is insufficient documentation in the record to 
prove the owner of the account and the purpose of the various 
transferred amounts. Additionally, transfer amounts vary 
between July 2010 and December 2010 and there is no evidence 
regarding purpose of the transfers. 

 

The complete USAF/A1PA evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit B. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

In a letter dated 12 October 2012 the applicant states his case 
has been ongoing for several years and the findings from his 
request to obtain DFAS and DOHA rulings show he had a valid 
rental contract and, therefore, was obligated to pay rent as the 
regulation requires. 

 

He further states he is not sure why USAF/A1PA’s advisory claims 
he was not obligated to pay rent because he provided a valid 
contract as evidence of having to pay rent. He cites the email 
messages sent to his unit finance office and copies of his 
rental contracts as confirmation that he needed to maintain his 
apartment because of his rental agreement and the fact that his 
personal property was there in the apartment. He planned to 
return to his apartment after he completed training. 

 

The advisory statement that his rental contract did not have a 
dollar amount listed on it was only true of the last of three 
rental contracts. He provided two contracts, with rental fees 
listed, to the unit finance office as well as DFAS and DOHA. He 
accidentally submitted a contract without the rental fee right 
before he departed to basic training. 

 

He, his landlord, and his agent who is also his aunt have 
provided rental contracts, tax records and signed statements to 
prove he paid rent while away at training. He had a valid 
contract, a need for the apartment and it was allowed by 
regulation. 

 


The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 (OPR) 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 agrees with the OPR that the applicant has not provided 
sufficient evidence that he had a continuing obligation to pay 
rent. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we 
find no 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 issue(s) 
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 this application 
BC-2011-04558 in Executive Session on 1 November 2012, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 


The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 November 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, USAF/A1PA, dated 21 September 2012. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 September 2012. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 October 2012, 

 w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair