RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03027
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be paid for his Permanent Change of Station (PCS) to
Blytheville, Arkansas as a married member versus single member.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
When he moved to Blytheville in January 1986, he was married but
was reimbursed by the Air Force as if he was single.
The applicants complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicants military personnel records indicate he enlisted
in the Regular Air Force on 17 Jan 86.
On 1 Sep 87, the applicant was furnished a general (under
honorable conditions) discharge for misconduct and was credited
with 1 year, 7 months, and 15 days of active service.
On 19 Sep 12, SAF/MRBR sent correspondence to applicant
requesting any documents pertaining to his PCS move with which
to validate his entitlement to the moving expense reimbursement
he is requesting.
On 27 Sep 12, the applicant responded stating he lost his
military records in a move in 1990 and he does not have any more
information to provide.
________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:
We have carefully reviewed the applicants submission and the
evidence of record and do not find a sufficient basis to excuse
the untimely filing of this application. The applicant did not
file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was
discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section
1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for
Correction of Military Records. The applicant has not shown a
plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we are not
persuaded the record raises issues of error or injustice which
require resolution on the merits. Thus, we conclude it would
not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicants
failure to file in a timely manner.
________________________________________________________________
DECISION OF THE BOARD:
The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the
interest of justice to waive the timeliness requirement. It is
the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application
as untimely.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-03027 in Executive Session on 20 Feb 13, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Jun 12, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Sep 12.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Sep 12.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-02847
DPAPP contacted the 355 FSS to determine why the orders were processed late and was advised by e-mail communique that the applicant did not complete the required personnel out-processing requirements until 19 Mar 2013. We do not deny that the applicant was inconvenienced as a result of the late issuance of his PCS orders; however, in cases where PCS orders are delayed, the requirement and expectation is to postpone the shipment of any household goods until orders are published. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03947
The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicants military service records, are contained in the Air Force evaluation at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: PPA HQ/CCC recommends approval. Based on information in the case file, it appears erroneous information received regarding authorization for shipment prior to issuance of orders resulted in an injustice against the applicant, and their office concurs that he...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04676
The applicant has not provided evidence to support a probable error or injustice. We note the applicant contends he procured his move prior to the issuance of orders since there was insufficient time to obtain orders as his father was terminally ill. Consequently, he was not entitled to reimbursement for any expenses he incurred for the DITY move as the governing regulation requires prior transportation authorization. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00067
He initiated shipment of household goods prior to this temporary duty (TDY) assignment in order to alleviate stress on his wife and because of the short time frame between his return from TDY and permanent change of station (PCS). ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: PPA HQ/ECAF recommends partial relief. The complete PPA HQ/ECAF evaluation is at Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00423
His PCS order was issued on 10 August 2012. When he attempted to file his paperwork with the TMO he was told that he was not entitled, as the shipment was made prior to issuance of the PCS order. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that competent authority issued a Letter-in-Lieu of order dated 20 July 2012, and the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02153
He is not entitled to full reimbursement of his airline tickets purchased for travel from Los Angeles to Baltimore, because it exceeds the MALT PLUS between Atlanta and Baltimore. He was briefed that he could not be issued government travel tickets for his leave travel. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that: a.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03475
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: PPA/ECAF recommends approval. Incident to the PCS, the applicant effected a shipment of HHG at government expense, and personally arranged to ship his motorcycle to the Philippines. However, the motorcycle qualifies as HHG and he was authorized to ship it to the Philippines as HHG.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02107
The applicant questioned the TMO regarding exceeding his weight allowance since his previous PCS shipment was not in excess of the allowance, as he had not received a notification of excess cost for the move. The applicant was informed that he may have exceeded his HHGs weight allowance and could have requested the shipment be reweighed at that time. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicants complete submission, we are persuaded the failure to timely notify the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04576
CG B-202023, dated 4 Dec 1981, advises that civilian employees married to members of the uniformed services cannot each receive an entitlement for shipment of the same HHG. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01947
DD Form 2278, Application for DITY Move and Counseling Checklist, dated 9 Dec 05, indicates the applicant advised the transportation office at Pope AFB he had an estimated weight of 500 pounds to ship to Eielson AFB, AK. Since transportation personnel are without authority to authorize a member to ship more weight than what is authorized by regulations, it is doubtful they would advise the applicant he could transport the excess weight himself and be reimbursed for doing so. We noted the...