RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	


	BOARD DATE:	  10 May 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060016408


	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. Gerard W. Schwartz

Acting Director

Mr. Michael L. Engle

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Kenneth L. Wright

Chairperson

Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr.

Member

Ms. Karmin S. Jenkins

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 reinstatement of her transportation entitlement for shipment of household goods, and an extended period of time to use it.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that upon her retirement she was enrolled in a 4-year college program with Park University.  During her retirement brief, she did not make a selection to use her transportation entitlement due to the fact that she was already settled in a home and was enrolled in school and was advised not to do so until she needed to move her household goods.  The applicant states that during her out-processing she talked with a specialist, telling him that she was going to remain at her residence until graduation.  She asked what she needed to do and was informed “Nothing right now”.  The applicant further states that she was offered a job in the United Kingdom but did not contact the transportation office since she was not shipping her household goods and her brother would be staying in her residence.  Now the applicant has made a transition back from the United Kingdom and plans to build a new home.  She graciously requests a favorable consideration to reinstate her entitlement so that she may ship her property after her new home is fully constructed.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), retirement orders, letter from Park University, and a Notification of Personnel Action (SF Form 50). 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice which occurred on 31 December 2002, a year after her retirement.  The application submitted in this case is dated 19 October 2006.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  On 4 December 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  She completed her initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 71L1O (Administrative Specialist).  She served through a series of reenlistments and retired on 31 December 2001. She attained the rank of staff sergeant, pay grade E6, and had completed 16 years and 27 days of creditable active duty.

4.  Orders 361-0004, United States Army Garrison, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, show that the applicant was released from active duty on 31 December 2001 and placed on the retired list the following day.  The orders indicate that she did not request a place of retirement.  The additional instructions state that she had up to 1 year to complete her selection of a home and complete her travel in connection with her retirement.

5.  On 15 November 2006, the Assistant Campus Center Director, Park University, wrote a letter, addressed to: Whom it may concern, stating that the applicant had graduated from Park University in good standing and had received a Bachelor of Science in Management in August 2004. 

6.  SF Form 50, dated 23 July 2006, shows that the applicant was a full-time government employee with a service computation date of 26 July 2004.

7.  The Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR), Volume I, provides, in pertinent part, that travel to a selected home must be completed within 1 year after active duty termination.  A member, who on the active service termination date is undergoing education or training to qualify for acceptable civilian employment is entitled to travel and transportation allowances to a home of selection from the last permanent duty station.  However, the travel must be completed within 1 year after the education or training is completed, or 2 years from the active service termination date, whichever is earlier; and the extended time must be authorized and approved by the Secretarial Process.  A further extension of this time limit may be authorized and approved by the Secretarial Process.

8.  The JFTR further provides that travel and transportation allowance extensions for members separating from the service may be authorized and approved for a specific additional time period using the Secretarial Process.  It requires a written time limit extension that includes an explanation of the circumstances justifying the extension.  It may be authorized and approved only when circumstances prevent use within the prescribed time; and must be for the shortest time appropriate under the circumstances.  It may not be granted merely to accommodate personal preferences or convenience; and may not be authorized and approved if it extends travel and transportation allowances for more than 
6 years from the date of separation, release from active duty, retirement, or from the date of receipt by a member's dependents of official notice that the member is dead, injured, missing, interned, or captured, unless a certified on-going medical condition prevented the relocation of the member or dependent(s) from the date of separation/retirement.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was separated from active duty on 31 December 2001 and chose not to relocate until after completion of her schooling.  She was informed on her orders that she had only 1 year in which to use her transportation entitlement.  She was verbally informed at the time of her separation that she did not have to do anything “at that time.”  This comment should have left her with an understanding that eventually she would have to “do something.”  There is no evidence that the applicant ever requested, before now, an extension of her entitlement.

2.  The applicant’s initial need for an extension of her entitlement was supportable by regulation based on her attending school to qualify for civilian employment; however the length of the extension could only be for 1 year from school completion, or 2 years from the date of her retirement.  The applicant completed her education in August 2004, which was 2 years and 7 months after her retirement.    

3.  Furthermore, an extension of a transportation entitlement may not be granted merely to accommodate personal preferences or convenience; and may not be authorized and approved if it extends travel and transportation allowances for more than 6 years from the date of separation.  In the applicant’s situation, more than 5 years have already transpired.   She is now asking for reinstatement of the entitlement, as well as an unknown amount of additional time because she is building a new home.  

4.  The applicant has not provided any evidence to substantiate that her request is for any reason other than for her personal preference and convenience.  

5.  In view of the above, the applicant’s request should not be granted.

6.   Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 31 December 2002; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 
30 December 2005.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case.





BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__KLW__  __PHM __  __KSJ___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




___Kenneth L. Wright___
          CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060016408
SUFFIX

RECON
 
DATE BOARDED
20070510
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
 
DATE OF DISCHARGE
 
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
 
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
136.0600.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.