| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Melinda M. Darby | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be paid per diem for temporary duty (TDY) for the period 24 February 1992 through 13 May 1992.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he is the victim of substantiated racial discrimination by the “CID” [correctly known as Criminal Investigation Command] and is the only person who has not been paid TDY per diem. He contends that he and two other warrant officers were officially assigned to the Hanau Military Community and were ordered to report to the Frankfurt “CID” each day for work, which was located in the Frankfurt Military Community. He states that the three warrant officers drove each day from Hanau to Frankfurt and returned to their official duty stations where their families remained. He contends that there was nothing voluntary, to him, about the direct order to report to Frankfurt “CID” for work. 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 Military Records), dated 31 July 2000; a request for reconsideration, dated 31 July 2000, with enclosures outlined in this request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 31 July 1998, the applicant retired in the rank of Chief Warrant (CW) Officer Three after completing 20 years of active duty.
At the time in question, the applicant was serving on active duty as a special agent in the rank of CW2 in Germany.
The applicant filed a DD Form 1351-2 (Travel Voucher or Subvoucher), dated
4 December 1995. This voucher claims travel between Hanau, Germany, and Frankfurt, Germany, for the period 24 February 1992 through 13 May 1992. There are no TDY orders to support the travel and or per diem claimed.
In 2001, the applicant submitted a claim to DFAS requesting per diem for TDY during the period 24 February 1992 through 13 May 1992. On 7 November 2001, the Deputy Director, Systems and Procedures Travel Pay Services at DFAS, Indianapolis, Indiana, determined that there are no per diem entitlements payable for the travel claimed and denied the applicant’s request.
The Deputy Director, Systems and Procedures Travel Pay Services at DFAS indicated that the applicant’s request was denied essentially because there were no travel orders issued and per diem is not paid for local travel. This letter also indicates that the applicant was paid transportation (mileage) for the 30-mile round trips from Hanau to Frankfurt during the period 24 February 1992 through 13 May 1992.
The applicant’s records contain a copy of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records case AR1999030529. The case summary states that the applicant appealed three Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) based on racial discrimination. The OSRB noted that racial discrimination and preferential treatment was substantiated in the applicant’s case and, as a result, the OSRB removed two of the three OERs and found that there was no justification to amend or remove the remaining OER.
The applicant provided a copy of an e-mail, dated 11 February 1998, from an official in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management. This e-mail points out that the applicant was not authorized TDY based on Comptroller General decisions.
Paragraph U4102 of the Joint Federal Travel Regulation states that a member is not entitled to per diem for travel or TDY performed within the limits of the permanent duty station.
Paragraph 4100 of the Joint Federal Travel Regulation states that a per diem allowance is designated to offset the costs of lodging, meals and incidental expenses incurred by a member while performing travel and or TDY away from the member’s permanent duty station.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that he was the victim of racial discrimination and disparate treatment in regard to payment of per diem during the period 24 February 1992 through 13 May 1992. The Board noted the action of the OSRB which removed two OERs based on documented racial discrimination and preferential treatment. However, DFAS has opined in the applicant’s case that there is no entitlement to per diem. An official of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management has also pointed out that the applicant was not authorized TDY based on Comptroller General decisions. Based on these facts, the Board rejects the applicant’s contention that he was not entitled to per diem as a result of racial discrimination.
2. The Board considered the applicant’s request that he be paid per diem for TDY for the period 24 February 1992 through 13 May 1992. However, there is no evidence of record available to the Board, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows that he was issued TDY orders to support this travel and or per diem claimed.
3. The Board noted that the letter from DFAS, dated 7 November 2001, states the applicant was paid transportation (mileage) for the 30-mile round trips from Hanau to Frankfurt during the period 24 February 1992 through 13 May 1992.
4. Based on the foregoing and in accordance with the governing regulation, a member is not entitled to per diem for travel or TDY performed within the limits of the permanent duty station. Therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.
5. 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 this requirement.
6. 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
INW____ MMD____ JTM____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065130 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020416 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 128.1400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2013 | 20130018503
p. A DA Form 1559 (IG Action Request), dated 22 April 2008, the applicant submitted for an investigation into why his original orders were for PCS and not TDY for his 179 days and why it was not amended in time and payment for his 10 days AT in January 2008. q. The evidence of record shows the applicant, while already on orders for 98 days, was issued ADT PCS orders for 179 days. Therefore, he is not entitled to amendment of his PCS orders.
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 | CY2013 | 20130018512
The applicant states she was ordered to active duty from North Carolina where she resided in December 2006 to perform a contingency operations temporary tour of active duty (COTTAD) in support of Operation Noble Eagle with duty at the Pentagon. DFAS's multiple letters stated her claim for per diem for meals was not authorized since she resided within commuting distance to the Pentagon. She maintained residency in both a local address her HOR in Maryland and the residence in North...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006888
COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel requests: * rescission of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) Report of Investigation (ROI), dated 28 February 2008 (Final/SSI 0087-07-CID041-XXXXX-XX) * rescission of the memorandum of reprimand (MOR) issued to the applicant, dated 23 January 2012, and removal of the MOR from his Official Military Personnel File (now known as the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR)) * remission of the alleged debt to the Defense...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001721
The investigating officer (IO) alleged the applicant had not moved to Richmond, as she had stated on her travel vouchers and statements; thereby, she fraudulently claimed expenses and reimbursement as if she had completed the move, then received BAH for Richmond when not entitled to that allowance. d. There is sufficient evidence to support a number of specific findings that she: (1) never moved to Richmond; (2) falsified her DD Form 1351-2 for her claimed PCS move to Richmond; (3) claimed...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03022
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03022 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be reimbursed $1,293.13 to offset Temporary Lodging Expenses (TLE) incurred with her Permanent Change of Station (PCS) assignment to Ramstein Air Base (AB), Germany. A request was submitted to the Secretary of the Air Force Financial...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008495
The applicant requests correction of: * Orders 126-374, dated 6 May 2010, to show he was ordered to Full-Time National Guard Duty - Operational Support (FTNGD-OS) for the period 1 May to 30 September 2010 vice 7 May 2010 to 30 September 2010 * his records to show he was entitled to and used 10 days permissive temporary duty (PTDY) vice 10 days ordinary leave in September 2010 (emphasis added) 2. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was issued orders to FTNGD-OS with the CA CDTF,...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03780
When the applicant filed his voucher for lodging expense for order number D493YE it was denied. 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 Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/FMP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120014182
On or about 8 August 2012, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) informed this Board that it was unable to implement paragraph 1b of the BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION in Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Docket Number AR20110020924 dated 12 July 2012. That paragraph requested DFAS to do a complete audit of the applicants Master Military Pay Account (MMPA) and pay him all due temporary duty (TDY) travel entitlements. BOARD VOTE: ___X ___ ___X____ ___X...