RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        26 JULY 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040009015


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda Simmons                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick McGann                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Leonard Hassell               |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that he be granted “a final one year extension
of travel and transportation entitlements” as an exception to the JFTR
(Joint Federal Travel Regulation), paragraph U5012-I.

2.  The applicant states that he was never notified, in any way, that the
total period of extension “normally allowed by the JFTR was six years from
the date of retirement.”  He states he followed the “verbal guidance from
the local TMOs [Transportation Management Officers) and the written
guidance provided in each approved extension.”

3.  The applicant states when he was advised by his local TMO that
Headquarters, Department of the Army had disapproved “the extension, with
no reason or formal reply provided” he contacted the POC (point of
contract) by
e-mail and requested “one final extension on an exception basis.”  He notes
that request was also denied.

4.  The applicant maintains that he should have been notified that his
extension approval “expiring 30 Sep 2003 would be the last” and notes that
the local TMO approval through 30 September 2004 was actually done in
error.

5.  The applicant states that his reason for requesting the extension was
valid, that he earned the entitlements with nearly 26 years of active
service, and that the military improperly advised him and then failed to
notify him that his total period of extension would expire on 30 September
2003.  He states “that is unfair.”

6.  The applicant provides a copy of his 1997 separation orders, copies of
correspondence approving annual extensions of his travel and transportation
entitlements for the years 1999 through 2004 from MacDill Air Force Base in
Florida, a copy of his 22 July 2004 request for another extension, a copy
of a
29 June 2004 letter from his spouse’s physician regarding the status of her
medical condition, copies of e-mail traffic between the applicant and an
official from the Army’s G-4 (Logistics) Transportation and Distribution
staff, and a copy of the 28 September 2004 letter from the Office of the
Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, denying the applicant’s petition for an
extension of his travel and transportation entitlements.




CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant entered
active duty as an enlisted Soldier in 1971 and was commissioned following
completion of Officer Candidate School in 1976.  He continued to serve on
active duty, in the Quartermaster Corps, and attained the rank of
lieutenant colonel prior to retiring, on 30 September 1997, after more than
26 years of continuous active Federal service.

2.  During the applicant’s military career he was assigned command
positions as a first lieutenant and a captain.  He also served as a
battalion executive officer and battalion commander after being promoted to
lieutenant colonel.  His final assignment was as director of logistics at
the Special Operations Command Central located at MacDill Air Force Base in
Florida.

3.  The applicant’s retirement orders noted, in two repetitive statements,
that he was authorized shipment of household goods to his home of record or
home of selection and that he was authorized up to one (1) year to complete
travel in connection with this action.  The orders also indicated that he
was required to complete a retirement briefing as soon as possible.

4.  The Army Personnel Service Support Team at MacDill Air Force Base
issued his retirement orders.  His Home of Record, according to information
contained on his separation document was in Columbia, South Carolina while
his mailing address following separation was recorded as Riverview,
Florida.

5.  On 15 July 1998 the applicant’s “recent request for an extension of
your travel and transportation entitlements” was approved under paragraphs
U5130-B4, U5230-B3, and U5365-F, of Volume 1, Joint Federal Travel
Regulation.  The extension was until 30 September 1999 “provided” the
household goods were submitted to a transportation office or carrier for
shipment within the extended time line and the travel “if applicable” was
completed to the home of selection within the extended time limit.  The
approval document, which was issued by the Traffic Management Officer at
the 6th Air Refueling Wing, MacDill Air Force Base, noted that “extensions
of time limitations for other deserving cases are approved by this office
in 1 (one) year increments.  Requests for further extension should arrive
at this office 60 days prior to the end of the 1 (one) year period.”

6.  Paragraphs U5130-B4, U5230-B3, and U5365-F, of Volume 1, Joint Federal
Travel Regulation essentially all provide for an extension of the 1-year
time limit for travel and transportation entitlements authorized following
retirement, separation, or termination of active duty.  Each paragraph
states that extensions “may [emphasis added] be authorized/approved when an
unexpected event beyond the member’s control prevents the member from
moving to the HOS [home of selection] within the specified time limit.”
They also note that an extension may be authorized or approved “if it is in
the Service’s best interest, or substantially to the benefit of the member,
and not costly or otherwise adverse to the Service.”  In each instance each
of the paragraphs referred to restrictions to time limit extensions
provided under paragraph U5012-I.

7.  Paragraph U5012-I states that a written time limit extension that
includes an explanation of the circumstances justifying the extension may
not be authorized/approved if it extends travel and transportation
allowances for more than 6 years from the date of separation or release
from active duty or retirement unless a certified on-going medical
condition prevents relocation of the member for longer than 6 years from
the separation/retirement date.  The paragraph also precludes the approval
of extensions merely to accommodate personal preferences or convenience.

8.  On 11 August 1999, 9 August 2000, 17 August 2001, and 21 August 2002,
the Traffic Management Officer at MacDill Air Force Base extended the
applicant’s travel and transportation entitlements annually until 31
September 2003.  The letters approving the extensions were identical.

9.  On 31 July 2003 a new Traffic Management Officer at MacDill Air Force
Base informed the applicant that his request for extension of travel and
transportation entitlements had been extended until 30 September 2004.  The
notification letter was, again, identical in wording to the previous five
letters.

10.  On 22 July 2004 the applicant submitted a request for “Shipping
Entitlement Extension.”  He noted that he “must again request extension of
my entitlement to move my family and household goods at government expense
following retirement from active duty.”  He noted that he had not used any
of this entitlement and indicated that his household goods and family were
at the “Riverview, Florida address.”  He stated that his retirement
effective date was
30 September 1997 and that he was attaching a copy of his retirement orders
and “entitlement extension expiring 30 Sep 03….”

11.  The applicant states that the basis for his request was “medical
treatment” and that his wife was diagnosed with Waldenstrom’s
Macroglobulinemia, a type of bone marrow cancer, in October 1997, the first
month after his retirement.  He attached a letter from his spouse’s
oncologist and indicated that “we have decided that our most prudent course
of action to ensure continuity of care is to remain in the Tampa Bay area
under the care of this oncologist.”  He indicated that he expected “to use
this shipping entitlement within the one year period of this requested
extension.”

12.  The 29 June 2004 letter from the applicant’s spouse’s oncologist noted
that the applicant’s spouse was under his care and that after her initial
diagnosis in October 1997 she underwent several courses of chemotherapy and
has required ongoing treatment over several years with subcutaneous
medication.  The oncologist noted that it was “medically necessary that
this patient be evaluated on a regular basis by a medical oncologist with
laboratory evaluation of her blood as well as microscopic evaluation of her
blood smear and physical examination.” He stated that she suffers with
continued renal insufficiency as a result of her disease, and anemia would
be rapidly progressive if medication was withdrawn.  He noted that she
required “close observation to prevent and/or treat relapse as soon as
evidence of any progression occurs.”

13.  Copies of the applicant’s requests and any supporting statements,
which he submitted in support of his earlier requests for extension of
travel and transportation entitlements were not available to the Board and
were not provided by the applicant.

14.  According to the e-mail traffic provided by the applicant, on 21
September 2004 he was informed that his request for extension of his travel
and transportation entitlements for an additional year had been denied.

15.  In response to the e-mail notifying him his request had been denied
the applicant wrote a lengthy e-mail to the POC in the Army’s G-4 office.
In that
e-mail he noted that he was never advised that there was a limitation, and
that he was advised by the previous Traffic Management Officer at MacDill
Air Force Base “on what to submit” and that “extensions were approved in
one year increments, and that I should resubmit to her office each year as
necessary.”  He indicated that was what he did.  He stated that now he
found himself “blindsided by the abrupt revelation of a time limitation
that [the MacDill Air Force Base TMO] appears to be unaware of either.”

16.  The applicant noted that his spouse’s condition was a deserving reason
for approving the extensions.  He states that his spouse underwent 2 years
of debilitating treatment for blood cancer, required more than a year to
fully recover from the effects of treatment, and was “closely monitored for
another year, watching for recurrence.”  He states that “only then did her
oncologist feel comfortable in assessing her condition as appearing to be
in remission.”  He notes that it was understandable that she was reluctant
to move away from the doctor but they were still planning on moving closer
to family in Texas.  As such, he stated he “continued to request extensions
while the evidence mounted that her disease was indeed in remission.”  He
stated that this summer (2004) the decision was made not to leave the Tampa
Bay area but they never intended for their current resident to be the
retirement home.  However, there was not enough time on the “current
extension to find or build that retirement home” and that with “three
hurricanes that hit Florida the past few weeks” delays resulted in “being
able to build or to do home closing transactions.”  He stated that he
earned “the entitlement to this final PCS [permanent change of station]
move” and that it was “clearly in the best interest of the service to
approve this request as an exception” to the Joint Federal Travel
Regulation.  His address as of the September 2004
e-mail was the same Riverview, Florida address reflected on his 1997
separation document.

17.  A 28 September 2004 letter from the Office of the Deputy Chief of
Staff, G-4, Transportation and Distribution Division officially informed
the applicant that his request had not been approved and noted that his
entitlements “expired on September 30, 2003.”

18.  The Comptroller General of the United States has ruled in similar
cases that although a service member may have been misinformed about his
entitlements, the Government is not liable for the erroneous actions of its
officers, agents, or employees in the performance of their official duties.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence available to the Board indicates that the applicant
retired in 1997 and as such, under the Joint Federal Travel Regulation, the
applicant’s requests for extension of his travel and transportation
entitlements should not have exceeded 2003.

2.  However, notwithstanding the expiration of the 6 year time limit during
which extension of entitlements could have been granted, the applicant was
granted an additional year, through 2004, apparently as an oversight or
unintentional error by the TMO at MacDill Air Force Base.  That error or
oversight, however, does not serve as a basis to extend entitlements even
further.

3.  Based on the erroneous extension of entitlements until September 2004,
on
22 June 2004 the applicant requested an additional year extension and cited
his spouse’s need for continued medical care as the primary reason that he
“must again request extension of my entitlements.”

4.  However, approximately 90 days later, on 21 September 2004, the
applicant indicated in his e-mail to the Army’s G-4 office that “this
summer we decided that we would not leave the Tampa Bay area, but we did
want to relocate,” but hurricanes prevented that relocation.  He also
indicated that his spouse underwent 2 years of debilitating treatment for
blood cancer, required more than a year to fully recover from the effects
of treatment, and was “closely monitored for another year, watching for
recurrence” and that “only then did her oncologist feel comfortable in
assessing her condition as appearing to be in remission.”  The letter
submitted by the oncologist in support of the applicant’s 2004 request, and
his own statement in the initial request for extension implies otherwise.
Those documents imply that his spouse’s continued medical condition
precluded their relocation from the address in Riverview, Florida where
they were residing at the time of the applicant’s retirement.

5.  It is understandable that during the first 4 years following the
applicant’s retirement, while his spouse was undergoing treatment,
recovery, and monitoring, that extension of travel and transportation
entitlements were certainly warranted.  However, by the time the applicant
requested his latest extension, he was 7 years beyond his 1997 retirement
date, and in effect, by his 2004 request would have gone into his 8th year.
 The information now provided by the applicant suggests that his basis for
continuing to request extensions at some point may have crossed the line to
accommodating personal preferences or convenience.

6.  Based on the applicant’s statements in his 2004 e-mail, specifically
that he was never told that there were time limits to the extensions and
now finds himself “blindsided by the abrupt revelation of a time
limitation,” suggests that the applicant may have believed that he could
continue to request extensions indefinitely.

7.  It is also noted that extension of travel and transportation
entitlements were never a “guarantee.”  The Joint Federal Travel Regulation
indicates that entitlements “may” be authorized/approved.  Nonetheless the
applicant argues that he is entitled to exercise his travel and
transportation entitlements because he did not know any better and has not
yet used those entitlements.  His entitlement to exercise those travel and
transportation entitlements was guaranteed for 1 year following his
retirement, beyond that extensions were never a guarantee.





8.  The evidence shows that the applicant was a lieutenant colonel with
more than 26 years of continuous active Federal service.  He served in
positions of responsibility and as a commander while a first lieutenant,
captain, and lieutenant colonel.  His separation orders indicated that he
was required to complete a retirement briefing and in each of the approval
documents for his six approved extensions the paragraphs of the Joint
Federal Travel Regulation, which provided the basis for the approval, were
cited.  The fact that the applicant applied for an extension prior to the
expiration of his first year of entitlements following retirement is
evidence that he was aware that an extension of entitlements was possible.
It is reasonable to conclude, based on the foregoing, that he should have
known the limitations for seeking extensions to travel and transportation
entitlements.  His argument that he was not aware of limitations to those
extensions does not now serve as an adequate basis to continue to approve
such requests.

9.  While the applicant may have made decisions based on the information,
or as he indicated, the lack of information provided to him by a TMO or in
previous approval letters, the Joint Federal Travel Regulation prohibits
the extension of travel and transportation entitlements beyond 6 years
after an individual’s retirement.  The fact that he may have been told he
was entitled to such extensions does not provide a basis for continued
extensions, since the government is not liable for the erroneous
information given by its officers, agents or employees and the applicant
has not made a compelling argument for granting an exception to the Joint
Federal Travel Regulation.

10.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___LS___  __PM___  __LH____  DENY APPLICATION




BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.




                                  _____ Linda Simmons_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040009015                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050726                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]