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.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Waivers should be used if the justification is reasonable and
being a 26 year veteran and 7 year civil service employee should
have some weight on the factors and reviews.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 30 November 2006, the applicant was relieved from active duty
and retired on 1 December 2006, in the grade of master sergeant
under the provisions of AFI 36-3203 (Sufficient Service for
Retirement). He served 25 years, 11 months and 19 days of
active service.
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:
Personal Property Activity (PPA) Headquarters recommends denial
indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.
PPA states per Special Order AC-006052 dated 16 March 2006 the
applicant was released from active duty for the purpose of
retirement effective 30 November 2006. The order provided
authorization for travel and transportation entitlements to a
Home of Selection (HOS) with a time limit of one year past date
of termination of active duty.
The applicant requested and received extensions to the one year
time limit for travel and transportation entitlements. The
extensions were granted through HQ AFPC/DPSIAF, then through PPA
HQ/ECAF-B after assumption of the authority to grant extensions.
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. The applicant sent emails in December 2012 and
January 2014 requesting additional extensions due to challenges
in getting things done in the aftermath of hurricane Sandy, and
problems with the purchase of a home. PPA HQ/ECAF-B letter
dated 22 August 2014 denied the applicants request, advising
that the JFTR stipulated that an extension must not be
authorized if it extends the travel and transportation
entitlements for more than 6 years from the date of separation
or release from active duty and since it had been 8 years since
his retirement, he had utilized all available extensions.
The applicants request for additional extensions past the six
years does not appear to meet the intent of the extension
program - that the entitlement maintains its character as being
related to retirement from service and not a benefit that is
retained until used, and that it be based on an event beyond the
members control that prevented the use of the entitlement.
While we very much appreciate the applicants service to the
country through his military and civil careers, he has not
presented any evidence to show that an error has been made or an
injustice has been committed.
A complete copy of the PPA evaluation, with attachments, is at
Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A home is not a purchase you buy on impulse. He put down a
deposit on a home, but the owner kept the home contract in legal
knots. After purchasing the house the previous owner dragged
out the process on an escrow account from the home for six
months. He had to go to court to finally settle. He spent over
$14,000 to move and drove across country with a trailer. He is
asking for consideration of recouping cost that would have been
paid by the Government if he shipped HHG. He served proudly for
26 years plus 7 years as a civil service employee working for
the Air Force. Rules are rules, but all rules can be waived.
The applicants complete response, with attachment, 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, to include his
rebuttal, 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 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 an 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-2014-03571 in Executive Session on 30 April 2015,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2014-03571 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 August 2014, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Available Master Personnel Record.
Exhibit C. Letter, PPA HQ/ECAF, dated 9 October 2014,
w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 February 2015.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 March 2015, w/atch.
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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-04579
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. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01081
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Per Special Order ACD-00858, dated 26 May 2006, the deceased member was relieved from active duty and permanently disability retired effective 6 Jul 2006. The entitlement to ship HHG was exhausted when the shipments were moved to the HOS upon the member’s retirement. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jun 2012.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01115
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01115 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retirement order be corrected to include a permanent change of station (PCS) without a change of assignment in order to utilize his one move entitlement for a temporary move to Washington state, then, to his home in South Carolina. ECAF states...
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 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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-02418
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02418 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be authorized expenses in the amount of $4,750.00 to fly back to Orlando, Florida to claim his privately owned vehicle (POV). However, to correct the error in initially authorizing a POV shipment, they recommend the applicants records be...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01513
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibits C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ECAF recommends denial noting the applicant exhausted his shipping entitlement when he performed a local PPM and received reimbursement. The Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) Volume 1, reflects that service members placed on the...