RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01819

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED: YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Section 4 of Special Order A-X000026 be amended to read: 
ITINERARY: 1 Oct 2006 - 15 Jul 2007; Transportation: FROM: 
Anthem, AZ, TO:  Roosevelt Armory, 1614 W Roosevelt St, Phoenix 
AZ 85007, RETURN TO: Anthem, AZ. Then ITINERARY; 16 July 2007-30 
Sep 2007, Transportation:  FROM: Anthem, AZ TO: 214th RG, 5260 
E. Gafford Way, Davis-Monthan AFB AZ 85707, RETURN TO: Anthem.  

2.  Section 6 of Special Order A-X000240 be amended to delete 
household goods shipment authorization.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  The duty location on Special Order A-X000026 is incorrect 
and is neither indicative of the actual duty he performed or the 
commander’s original intent.  From 28 July 2006 through 
15 July 2007, he was ordered by his commander to perform duty at 
the Roosevelt Armory in Phoenix Arizona (AZ) because during that 
timeframe there was no building or office space for Detachment 
(Det) members to perform their duties at Tucson AZ.  As a 
necessity in order to provide working space for members, the Det 
commander assigned personnel to the Roosevelt Armory.  This 
helped to assist with the Joint Federal Travel Regulations 
(JFTR) travel policy that travel orders may not be retroactively 
modified except to correct an error or show original intent.  In 
accordance with (IAW) the JFTR U7150-A4, a PCS should not have 
been authorized for a tour that covers less than 180 days.  He 
was ordered to, and performed, duty for less than 90 days in 
Tucson (16 Jul 07 - 30 Sept 07) during the period of his 
temporary AGR tour.  His orders were temporary orders and PCS 
orders were issued incorrectly.  

2.  He has attempted to have this order corrected in the past 
and was told by the Arizona National Guard Human Resource 
Officer (AZ/HRO) that an orders correction “cannot be processed 
with HR due to the appeal process through the Defense Finance 
and Accounting System (DFAS) office.”  He has been unable to 
file a claim with DFAS because he has yet to receive a valid 
debt letter.  Additionally his concern is that if the orders 
were left uncorrected DFAS would be determining entitlements 
based on incorrect orders.  He does not want to start the appeal 
process until he has orders that are corrected to show his 
commander’s original intent.  There is no doubt, from the many 
documents provided, that his commander’s intent was for him to 
work out of the Roosevelt Armory, that he performed his duty as 
ordered via the statement of understanding (SOU), and that 
Special Order A-X000026 should be changed to reflect this 
established fact.  

In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of 
Special Orders A-X000026 and A-X000240, memorandums and email 
correspondence concerning his attempts to have his special 
orders corrected.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to documents extracted from his Military Personnel 
Record, the applicant is serving in the Air Force Reserve in the 
grade of Lieutenant Colonel, (Lt Col), O-5.  

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:

1.  NGB/A1PP recommends denial.  A1PP states the applicant's 
place of duty was at the Roosevelt Armory in Phoenix, Arizona 
and exceeded 180 days.  Both special orders A-X000026 and A-
X000240 should be updated to note the duty location as Roosevelt 
Armory, Phoenix AZ.  Additionally, since the applicant performed 
duties in Phoenix for more than 180 days PCS entitlement is 
authorized.  Therefore, they recommend the PCS and HHG 
authorization not be removed from his orders.  The applicant 
provided two sworn statements by both of his supervisors 
affirming his place of duty from 28 July 2006 through 
15 July 2007 was at the Roosevelt Armory in Phoenix, Arizona.  
According to the JFTR. “per diem is not payable at the duty 
location when the duty is for more than 180 days at one 
location.”  PCS allowances are appropriate per the JFTR 
paragraph U7150FlB.  Special Order A-X000240 should be corrected 
to note duty at the Roosevelt Armory in Phoenix, Arizona instead 
of Tucson International Airport; however, this correction would 
not change the PCS entitlement/requirement since the applicant 
performed his military duties in Phoenix rather than Tucson.  

The complete NGB/A1PP evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In further support of his appeal, the applicant provides 
additional copies of Special Orders A-X000026 and A-X000240, 
memorandums and email correspondence relating to his attempts to 
have his special orders corrected.  

The applicant’s complete 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 error or injustice.  We took 
careful 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.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 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 
in Executive Session on 28 January 2014, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

			, Panel Chair
			, Member
			, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2013-01819:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 April 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 11 June 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 August 2013.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 August 2013.