APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be awarded temporary duty (TDY) pay for temporary duty performed at his permanent duty station.
APPLICANT STATES: That he went TDY from Panama [his permanent duty station] to Honduras. While in Honduras, he was twice sent back to Panama for temporary duty. When he submitted his settlement voucher, he was denied TDY pay for the time spent TDY in Panama.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: NA
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He is a sergeant first class (SFC/E-7). On 25 July 1995, he was assigned to the 470th Military Intelligence Brigade, Corozal, Panama. Authorized to reside off-post, he found suitable quarters and moved in on/about 6 September 1995. On 12 September 1995, he was issued TDY orders for a 179-day assignment to Honduras. He reported to his TDY assignment on/about 17 September 1995.
Upon arriving in Honduras, the applicant was informed that he was required to attend SouthCom Information Management System (SIMS) training and was sent back to Panama on TDY orders which authorized him a hotel and rental car. He returned to his permanent duty station and completed the SIMS training. While he was in Panama, he stayed at the Guest House on Quarry Heights and utilized a rental car. He returned to Honduras on 6 October 1995 and submitted a payment voucher for $932.68 and received settlement.
On 29 November 1995, the applicant once again departed Honduras for his permanent duty station on TDY orders; this time in order to review his personnel file for an upcoming promotion board. Originally authorized 2 days in Panama, he did not return until 8 December 1995 for various reasons. Upon returning to Honduras, the applicant submitted a payment voucher for $1,348.60 and received settlement.
The applicant completed his TDY to Honduras and departed for Panama and his permanent duty station on 6 March 1996. When he submitted his payment voucher to his local Finance Office, the two previous settlements totaling $2,281.28 were treated as cash advances and deducted from his total TDY settlement, thus giving him a final settlement of $1,230.67. The reason stated by the Finance Office for not paying the applicant for the time he spent TDY in Panama was that one cant be paid as TDY while at permanent duty station.
The applicant appealed to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)-Indianapolis Center. On 29 April 1996, and again on 10 July 1996, DFAS denied his appeal, citing Federal law, the Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR), subparagraph U4102-A which specifically prohibits per diem entitlements while not in a travel status (i.e., not away from ones permanent duty station), and US Comptroller General decisions denying similar claims.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:
1. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.
2. Federal law, the JFTR that implements the law, and prior US Comptroller General decisions all confirm that per diem may not be paid to an individual while he/she is within the limits of his/her permanent duty station.
3. The DFAS-Indianapolis Center advisory opinion strongly recommends denying the applicants request.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051454C070420
He also concluded that no reimbursement exists because there was no evidence of “official” travel supported by official orders for the period of time the applicant was attached for duty at Fort Bragg. k. The DOHA, based on Comptroller General decisions and provisions of the JFTR, denied the applicant reimbursement for per diem for the period the applicant was attached and was present at Fort Bragg because it was determined to be disciplinary travel. c. Notwithstanding the determination...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003635C070208
By memorandum dated 25 June 2004, the Chief, Defense Military Pay Office, Fort Benning, GA recommended the applicant be reimbursed $8,260.90 for his TDY travel expenses. The applicant's calculations of his out-of-pocket expenses did not include the $1,878.50 for his rental car because DFAS reimbursed him for that particular TDY expense. The applicant’s military records may be corrected to show his PCS and TDY orders were amended to include the sentence “If officials at Fort Benning, GA...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022107
The applicant contends the DFAS and DOHA decisions are erroneous, unfair, and unjust for the following reasons: * the decisions incorrectly classify Honduras to United States travel as "transoceanic" * the decisions assume POV travel is more costly than POV shipment and air travel * the DOHA decision dismisses the fact that a U.S. Air Force (USAF) member performed the same travel (Honduras to United States) at the same time and received reimbursement 5. Comptroller General decisions in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065130C070421
He goes on to state that the two other warrant officers were paid TDY per diem. In support of his letter, he submits information from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) that his claim for travel payment was denied; DD Forms 1351-2 (Travel Voucher or Subvoucher) for the period 24 February 1992 through 13 May 1992; DD Form 1610, dated 31 March 1992; a letter, dated 10 January 2001, from the Board for Correction of Military Records; DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of...
# DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-00442 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: .. of the Departmeat of the Air Force relating to- e corrected to show that he had no other alternative but to mercial travel office (CTO) not under...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00299-09
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNO memorandum 7220 Ser N130E2/09U0125, a copy of which is attached. Enclosure (1) indicates that the petitioner was improperly authorized a rental car while assigned to the ii a> area on an Active Duty Training (ADT) Permanent Change of Station order of over 140 days. Such a change would violate a Comptroller General ruling that PCS orders may not be converted into temporary duty to increase entitlement.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03940
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 6 Feb 04 for review and response. The evidence of record indicates that during his activation, and while in a TDY status, the applicant made several trips from Willow Grove ARS to his home in Allentown, PA. Also during his activation, he submitted a number of interim travel vouchers, none of which reflected his trips...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03939
_________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ USAF/DPRCE noted that during his activation, the applicant received TDY entitlements in accordance with the JFTR. HQ USAF/DPRCE also noted the applicant submitted 15 accrual (advance) vouchers, none of which reflected the trips back to Stanhope. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017113
In support of her application, the applicant provides the following documents: a. DD Form 1351-2 (Travel Voucher or Subvoucher), dated 6 March 2012, with lodging and gasoline receipts, that show the applicant claimed TDY for the period 1 October 2011 to 19 January 2012 at Fort Hood, TX, with expenses, as follows: * Fuel: $626.94 * Lodging: $2,030.00 (October-November 2011) * Lodging: $1,390.00 (December 2011-January 2012) b. Four orders issued by the 81st Regional Support Command, Fort...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003636C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that his records be corrected to allow him to be paid for the temporary duty (TDY) expenses he incurred while TDY at Fort Benning, GA. 2. In response to a request for information, DFAS provided the Board amounts of entitlements that would have been due the applicant under different circumstances (had he been properly allowed to sign in to Fort Benning as permanent party or had he actually been TDY at Fort Benning enroute to a different PDS). The...