Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01234
Original file (BC-2012-01234.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-01234 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
     
 
     
 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1.  He  be  reimbursed  for  60  days  of  annual  leave  he  lost  upon 
retirement in FY04.   
 
2.  He be paid Temporary Duty (TDY) expenses he would have been 
paid had be used his authorized permissive TDY for house and job 
hunting  rather  than  continuing  to  work,  as  well  as  overseas 
housing Permanent Change of Station (PCS) allowance he deserves 
for remaining in the local area until retirement.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He  was  not  properly  reimbursed  for  unused  annual  leave  he  was 
owed  at  retirement.    He  did  not  use  the  permissive  TDY  he  was 
authorized  due  to  his  reporting  to  duty  until  the  day  he 
departed  his  final  duty  station  at  Izmir  Air  Station,  Turkey.  
Although he remained in the local area in off base quarters, he 
did  not  receive  a  temporary  housing  or  PCS  allowance.    It  is 
right to be reimbursed proper compensation and leave earned and 
not used. 
 
In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  provides  copies  of  an 
SF600e, Patient Encounter Form, and his DD Form 214, Certificate 
of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  initially  entered  active  duty  on  29  Feb  84, 
retired on 30 Apr 04, and was credited with 20 years, 2 months, 
and 2 days of active duty service.   
 
IAW AFI 36-3003, Military Leave Program, a one-time sell back of 
leave is authorized for enlisted Service members, however, such 

a  sell  back  counts  towards  the  Service  member’s  cap  of  selling 
back 60 days over a career.  
 
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described  in  the  letter  prepared  by  the  Air  Force  office  of 
primary responsibility which is included at Exhibit C. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice.  The applicant earned 17.5 days of leave 
during  Fiscal  Year  2004  (FY04).    He  used  16  days  of  ordinary 
leave during the period 19 Dec 03 through 3 Jan 04, and 4 days 
of ordinary leave during the period 12 Mar 04 through 15 Mar 04.  
In addition, he used 19 days of permissive TDY leave during the 
period  12  Apr  04  through  30  Apr  04.    His  permissive  TDY  from 
12 Feb  04  through  1 Mar  04  was  cancelled.    He  sold  back  the 
maximum  of  60  days  of  leave  in  FY04.    The  applicant  lost  8.5 
days  of  leave  upon  retirement  because  they  were  not  used,  and 
could not be sold back because he had previously sold back the 
maximum  number  of  days.    AFI  36-3003  indicates  that  a  member’s 
application must clearly establish an error or injustice by the 
Air  Force  caused  the  member’s  lost  leave.    In  this  case,  the 
member had previously sold the maximum authorized for a career, 
so no error existed.   
 
A  complete  copy  of  the  AFPC/DPSIM  evaluation,  with  attachment, 
is at Exhibit C. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The  applicant  repeats  his  initial  contentions,  and  states  he 
never  received  a  Leave  and  Earnings  Statement  (LES)  and  truly 
cannot  recollect  proper  payment.    He  mentions  he  also  did  not 
receive dislocation allowance, and requests proof of payment be 
sent to him (Exhibit E). 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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  an  error  or  injustice.    We  took 
notice  of  the  applicant’s  complete  submission  in  judging  the 

 
2 

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 
the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice 
concerning  his  leave  balance.    Further,  the  Board  notes  the 
applicant  submitted  no  evidence  to  substantiate  his  claim  his 
final  payment  was  in  error  with  respect  to  permanent  change  of 
station  related  costs  and  allowances  at  the  time  of  receipt  of 
said  payment,  and  submitted  no  such  evidence  with  this 
application.    Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the 
contrary,  we  find  no  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief 
sought in this application.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
 
The  applicant  be  notified  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  material  error  or  injustice;  the 
application  was  denied  without  a  personal  appearance;  and  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-2012-01234  in  Executive  Session  on  31  Aug  12,  under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   Panel Chair 
 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Apr 12, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 21 Jun 12, w/atch. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jul 12. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Aug 12.   

, Panel Chair 
, Member 
, Member 

 
3 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03476

    Original file (BC 2013 03476.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Since the applicant sold the maximum 60 days of leave previously, he is ineligible to sell his 42 days of lost leave in conjunction with his 1 Dec 2012 retirement. Although he was paid for 60 days of accrued leave in conjunction with his 1 Jul 1995 retirement, the evidence reflects that he was recalled to active duty in Jul 2009 under the Rated Officer Recall Program and retired again on 1 Dec 2012. Therefore, in the interest of justice we recommend the applicant’s Extended Active Duty...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03240

    Original file (BC-2002-03240.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    AFI 36-3003 requires members to receive payment for up to 60 days accrued leave and affords them time to take any accrued leave in excess of the 60-day limit. Members retiring or separating for disability are authorized to use accrued leave that they cannot sell back as a result of this process. The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01888

    Original file (BC-2005-01888.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Applicant requests 60 days of leave be restored to his leave account and he be entitled to sell his leave upon his 1 May 2005 retirement. The Air Force has recommended restoring 60 days to the applicant’s leave account. In reviewing the applicant’s MMPA, DFAS determined, however, that the applicant’s account should have reflected 26.5 days of leave at the time of his retirement.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00768

    Original file (BC 2014 00768.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    If he had known he would be losing six days of leave then he would have made adjustments to his PTDY and terminal leave dates. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant did not use six days of his annual/ordinary leave...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03471

    Original file (BC-2012-03471.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03471 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 17 days of lost leave be restored, or as an alternative, he be allowed to sell back 15 days of leave. AFI 36-3003, Military Leave Program, explains Special Leave Accrual (SLA) allows members who are faced with circumstances that prohibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01027

    Original file (BC-2006-01027.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the CSS provided correct information to the applicant; according to para 12.3.11, unit commanders will "not authorize PTDY for house hunting enroute with PCS." In this respect, the Board notes that once the applicant arrived at his permanent duty location and signed in, the commander may approve up to eight days permissive leave. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9801826A

    Original file (9801826A.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    DPSFC stated that, if HQ AFPC/DPPRS agrees, the applicant’s retirement date should be changed from 1 Jul to 1 Sep 98. To grant the applicant additional active duty time to use 77 days of leave, his retirement date would have to be extended by 3 full months. Given the lost opportunity, and the change of circumstances, he was not even able to zero out the leave and permissive TDY days prior to 1 Jul 98.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00392

    Original file (BC-2010-00392.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B. 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 its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03927

    Original file (BC-2011-03927.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    DPSIM recommends relief for 6 days only as the 45 days the applicant requests has already been reinstated. The additional DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant submitted copies of her Leave and Earnings Statement showing her leave balance was 63 days. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03555

    Original file (BC 2013 03555.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03555 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty, be corrected to amend Block 16, Days Accrued Leave Paid, to reflect “60” rather than “0.” ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS...