RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04870
		
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Active Guard Reserve (AGR) orders covering the period 1 Apr 06 through 30 Sep 07 be amended to show his permanent duty location as the Roosevelt National Guard Armory, Phoenix, AZ, instead of Tucson International Airport, Tucson, AZ, from 1 Apr 06 through 15 Jul 07, and from 16 Jul 07 through 30 Sep 07 his permanent duty station was Davis-Monthan AFB (DMAFB), Tucson, AZ.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His AGR orders did not reflect the actual location where he was working.  After the orders were issued, he was directed by his commander to work at the Roosevelt National Guard Armory from 1 Apr 06 until 15 Jul 07 because work facilities at DMAFB  accommodating the new Arizona Air National Guard (ANG) Predator mission operations would not be available until 16 Jul 07.  Once this matter was brought to his commander’s attention, there was a discussion and agreement between his commander and a senior leader in the Arizona ANG that his orders should be amended to show the correct permanent duty location.  But, for whatever reason, the amendment to the orders was never accomplished.  During this tour of duty, he was required to travel to DMAFB on occasions resulting in him filing travel vouchers for each of the trips and being paid $1080.56.  Subsequently, Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) identified these payments as erroneous because his orders had him assigned at the location he had filed the travel voucher for, and debited him for said amount.  Were it not for the fact that his orders were erroneous, he would have been appropriately reimbursed for his legitimate travel expenses.

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



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant currently serves as an active guard/reserve (AGR) member in the Arizona ANG in the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8).  

On 29 Sep 06, according to the applicant’s AGR orders (Special Order (SO) A-X000198), he was ordered to perform a tour of AGR duty at Tucson, AZ during the period 1 Oct 06 through 30 Sep 07 in support of the Predator mission. 

On 1 Oct 07, the applicant’s AGR orders (SO A-X000006), were extended and the location of the duty reflected in the extension of his orders was DMAFB (Tucson, AZ).  

On 5 Sep 13, according to documents provided by the applicant, DFAS denied his waiver consideration of a $1086.56 overpayment of travel entitlements.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is included at Exhibit C.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1PP recommends granting relief, indicating sufficient evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  The applicant provides two sworn statements by his supervisors affirming that contrary to what is reflected in his orders, his place of duty between 1 Apr 06 and 15 Jul 07 was actually at the Roosevelt Armory in Phoenix, AZ.  The sworn statements also identify he relocated to Tucson, AZ when his unit was activated at DMAFB, his duty station from 16 Jul 07 until 30 Sep 07.  In accordance with Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) section U2330, temporary duty (TDY) status is limited to a maximum of 180 days at one duty location.  Based on the applicant’s duty time of over one year and three months in Phoenix, his orders should be amended to show his permanent duty station during the aforementioned period of time was the Roosevelt Armory in Phoenix, AZ.  From 16 Jul 07 to 30 Sep 07, the applicant’s duty location was DMAFB.  His orders should reflect the applicant in a TDY status for this period of time. 

A complete copy of the NGB/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7 Mar 14 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1PP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice warranting the relief requested by the applicant.  Since the last advisory in Jan 14, new evidence has been submitted to the case.  A similar circumstance (request for AGR orders be amended to show permanent duty location in Phoenix instead of Tucson) was previously denied by the Commander, Arizona ANG because the AGR position in the matter was on the Tucson ANG manning document, and the AGR vacancy announcement explicitly stated the location of the position was at Davis-Monthan AFB (Tucson), AZ.  The applicant was hired under the same circumstances as the aforementioned AGR vacancy announcement.  While NGB/A1PP notes the applicant provided supportive statements by his supervisors, the mission requirement was for Tucson.  Therefore, based upon the applicant being ordered to duty at Davis-Monthan AFB, Tucson, AZ, as prescribed in AGR Announcement Number 07-026A, and also written in the applicant’s AGR orders, SO A-X000198; the evidence previously provided does not substantiate a valid claim.  

A complete copy of the NGB/A1PP additional evaluation is at Exhibit E.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPR and argues that the AGR announcement Number 07-026A used by the OPR as a basis to substantiate their recommendation to deny is chronologically flawed and should not be considered.  He recaptures the timeline of the matter in question, provides copies of TDY orders that he is being debited for, and a copy of his permanent AGR tour order assigning him to DAMAFB, Tucson, AZ, on 1 Oct 07.  Additionally, he attached copies of AZANG leadership emails discussing/supporting his contention that he worked at the Roosevelt Armory in Phoenix at the direction of his commander until facilities meeting the need of the unit were available at DMAFB, Tucson (Exhibit G).


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 an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we are not convinced that corrective action is warranted.  While we note that the applicant contends he was directed to work in a different location than where his AGR orders had him permanently assigned, there is no evidence presented that his organizational leadership ever directed a change and/or amendment of the contested orders to reflect such.  The OPR’s additional evaluation revealed evidence of a similar circumstance (request for AGR orders be amended to show permanent duty location in Phoenix instead of Tucson) was previously denied by the Commander, Arizona ANG because the AGR position in the matter was on the Tucson ANG manning document, and the AGR vacancy announcement, explicitly stated the location of the position was at Davis-Monthan AFB (Tucson), AZ.  The applicant argues the aforementioned AGR vacancy announcement was chronologically flawed and should not be considered, because his permanent AGR tour advertised and hired for Davis-Monthan AFB (Tucson), AZ, began 1 Oct 07, and all of the TDY trips that he is being debited for, happened well before he received this assignment. However, evidence presented to the Board, specifically, AGR Order A X000198, assigning the applicant to full-time duty as an Intelligence Operations Specialist Tucson International Airport (IAP), AZ, effective 1 Oct 06 undermines the applicant’s argument.  While we did note there is a difference of the exact duty locations: AGR Vacancy Announcement - Davis-Monthan AFB, applicant’s AGR Orders – Tucson AIP; both locations are in Tucson, AZ, with the same unit of assignment - 162nd Fighter Wing, and the same duty position - Intelligence Operations Specialist.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and the fact that a similarly situated member was denied a similar request by the then Commander, Arizona ANG, basis being that the AGR position in question was located in Tucson, a critical fulltime position intended to meet mission requirements in Tucson, and was never intended or authorized for any requirements in Phoenix; we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.


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-2013-04870 in Executive Session on 24 Mar 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-04870 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Sep 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 29 Jan 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 23 Jan 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Feb 15.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Mar 15, w/atchs.