RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04579
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be granted an extension of the one year time limitation for
travel and transportation entitlement associated with his
retirement.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He could not move before the established Air Force deadline
because of his spouses illness. He was told to just call
whenever he was ready to move. He is only asking for what is
due to him after sacrificing twenty plus years of honorable
service.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 30 June 1999, the applicant was relieved from active duty and
retired in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), effective
1 July 1999. He was credited with 20 years and 2 days of total
active service.
On 18 July 2012, the applicant requested an extension to the
length of time authorized to relocate because his spouses
prognosis improved and is now able to move.
On 24 July 2012, PPA HQ/ECAF-B notified the applicant that his
current situation did not meet the criteria for a travel and
transportation entitlement extension.
On 28 August 2012, the applicant was advised that an extension
request for travel and transportation entitlement more than six
years after the date of his retirement could not be approved.
Extension request are to be requested each year from the date of
retirement and he had only made one request. Even if he had
applied and been approved for extensions on a yearly basis, the
latest extension he could qualify for would have expired on 30
June 2005.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of
primary responsibility which is attached at Exhibits C.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
PPA HQ/ECAF recommends denial, indicating the Joint Federal
Travel Regulation (JFTR) is very specific in advising that,
except for a members medical condition, the maximum time limit
for utilizing retirement entitlements is six years. JFTR,
Volume 1, Paragraph U5012-I, indicates that an extension must
not be authorized/approved if it extends travel and
transportation allowances for more than six years from the date
of retirement, unless a members certified on-going medical
condition prevents relocation of the member for more than six
years from the retirement date. An extension for any other
reason (other deserving case) may not be for more than six years
from the date of retirement. The applicant has exceeded that
time limit by an additional seven years, which does not meet the
intent of the JFTR and pertinent Comptroller General decision.
Based on the effective date of the applicants retirement date
of 1 July 1999, the maximum number of extensions allowed would
have only resulted in an extension until 30 June 2005.
A complete copy of the PPA HQ/ECAF evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reiterates his argument that his spouse has been
undergoing treatment from the year 2000 until recently for a
severe illness, which prevented her from relocating.
A complete copy of the applicants response is at 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 applicants complete submission, including his
rebuttal response, 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 the applicant has not been the
victim of an error or injustice. 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-2012-04579 in Executive Session on 8 August 2013,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Vice Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 September 2012, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, PPA HQ/ECAF, dated 2 January 2013.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 January 2013.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 18 July 2012.
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01263
The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s military service records, are contained in the Air Force evaluation at Exhibit B. JFTR paragraph U5012-I further clarifies that an extension must not be authorized for approval for more than six years from the date of separation or release from active duty unless a member’s certified ongoing medical condition prevents relocation of the member for longer than six years from the retirement date. Based on the above, they believe an...
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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 03571
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03571 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted an extension of travel and transportation benefit beyond his six year release from active duty date. PPA HQ/ECAF-B letter dated 10 November 2011 granted an extension of travel and transportation entitlements through 30 November 2012, and also advised the applicant that it would be his final extension....
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02500
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02500 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive the necessary documentation for approval of the personally procured move (PPM) of his household goods (HHG) during a permanent change of station (PCS) move. ECAF states the applicant indicates he should be reimbursed for three primary...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05924
On 17 March 2011, the Joint Personal Property Shipping Office Northeast (JPPSO-NE) notified the applicant that his request for an extension was granted until 9 July 2011, a total of 180 days, and that any additional storage time past this date may not be authorized. On 15 June 2011, the applicant was advised that his HHG shipment from Florida in storage at government expense will expire/convert on 9 July 2011. On 17 June 2011, AFPC/DPSIAR notified the applicant and JPPSO-NE that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05924
On 17 March 2011, the Joint Personal Property Shipping Office Northeast (JPPSO-NE) notified the applicant that his request for an extension was granted until 9 July 2011, a total of 180 days, and that any additional storage time past this date may not be authorized. On 15 June 2011, the applicant was advised that his HHG shipment from Florida in storage at government expense will expire/convert on 9 July 2011. On 17 June 2011, AFPC/DPSIAR notified the applicant and JPPSO-NE that the...
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 01953
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01953 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The date of the order assigning him from Kunsan Air Base, Korea, to Dover Air Force Base (AFB), Delaware (DE) be changed from 30 August 2012 to 20 July 2012 so he can receive reimbursement for moving his family and household goods (HHG) from Virginia (VA) to Delaware (DE). Amended Order AG-033513, dated 11 January...
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 | 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.