IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  22 December 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110012932 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests she be granted an exception to policy to receive Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) at the rate for the Fort Sam Houston, Texas area, zip code 78234, instead of the Fort Lee, Virginia area, zip code 23801. 

2.  The applicant states her request for an exception to policy to receive BAH at the Fort Sam Houston area rate was denied.  The reasons cited for denial were that employment waivers were authorized only when skills are not transferrable or when a contract is broken causing financial liability and waivers are not granted based on home ownership or personal choice.  A second request was again denied by the same person.  She claims she then sought the assistance of the Fort Lee Inspector General (IG) and was denied a third time from the same office.  She states it is her belief she qualifies for a waiver under the provisions of All Army Activities (ALARACT) Message 021-2008 which allows for Secretarial waiver consideration for members whose spouses wish to continue employment at the old duty station.  

3.  The applicant provides electronic mail (e-mail) traffic, exception to policy requests, DD Forms 1559 (Department of the Army (DA) IG Action Request System), and ALARACT Message 021-2008 in support of her application.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 25 August 2008, orders were published reassigning the applicant, a U.S. Army Reserve Soldier, from Fort Sam Houston, Texas to Fort Lee, Virginia, in an Active Guard Reserve status with a report date of 5 January 2009.  
2.  On 6 January 2010, the applicant submitted a request to the Deputy Chief of Staff (DCS), G-1 for an exception to policy to draw BAH at a rate different from her duty station under the provisions of ALARACT Message 021-2008.  

3.  On 4 February 2010, the applicant’s exception to policy request was denied.  The reason cited for denial was that employment waivers are granted when skills are not transferrable or when a contract is broken causing financial liability.  Waivers are not granted based on home ownership or personal choice.  

4.  On 17 March 2010, the applicant sought the assistance of the Fort Lee IG.  The IG contacted the DA policy point of contact who indicated the intent of the policy in ALARACT Message 021-2008 is not to guarantee employment but to provide temporary relief to allow the spouse of a Soldier to make arrangements to relocate to the Soldier’s duty station.  If DA believes there is no intent for the family to join the Soldier, the request for exception will be denied.  He further stated it was not the Army’s intent to incentivize the separation of Soldiers from their families.  

5.  The Fort Lee IG confirms he spoke to the applicant and explained the DCS, G-1 response and she indicated she understood the intent as clarified but still wanted the ALARACT message changed.  

6.  On 3 June 2011, the applicant sought the assistance of the DA IG to obtain the BAH exception to policy she originally requested in January 2010.  

7.  On 13 June 2011, the DA IG notified the applicant that they had conferred with the Chief, Compensation Entitlements, DCS, G-1, about her case.  The IG further indicated the applicant had received several responses regarding the justification for the disapproval of her request.  After careful review, the IG determined the applicant’s case has been appropriately addressed and the applicant’s inquiry was closed.  

8.  In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the DCS, G-1, Chief, Compensation and Entitlements Division.  This official states after careful review of the applicant’s case, they conclude the applicant is receiving the proper BAH entitlement for her permanent duty station location, Fort Lee, Virginia.  This official further indicates administrative relief is not supported and confirms the applicant’s case has been adjudicated at various levels of the Army staff, including an inquiry from the DA IG and her case has been properly addressed as confirmed by the DA IG.  



9.  On 19 October 2011, the applicant responded to the DCS, G-1 advisory opinion.  She again outlines the actions she has taken and finally indicates that it is still her belief that the ALARACT message in question contains no hidden intent and therefore, she is eligible for a BAH waiver.  

10.  ALARACT Message 021-2008 (Exception to Policy Guidance for BAH Waivers) prescribes policy for Secretarial waivers to receive BAH at other than the Soldier’s duty station location.  It identifies four distinct categories for consideration.  Included in the four categories is “Soldiers who wish to have their spouses continue employment at the old duty station.”  This category required the submission of a letter substantiating employment with the request.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request for a BAH exception to policy under the provisions of ALARACT Message 021-2008 has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claims. 

2.  ALARACT Message 021-2008 provides only for consideration of such requests and does not provide specific criteria for approval.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s request for an exception to policy was properly considered as required by ALARACT Message 021-2008 and that she was provided sufficient reasons for the denial of her request.  

3.  The record further shows her case was properly evaluated by the Fort Lee IG and DA IG and both determined the applicant has received proper consideration.  As a result, absent evidence the applicant’s case was not properly considered under the provisions of ALARACT Message 021-2008, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X___  ____X___  ____X___  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.



      _______ _   __x_____   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110012932



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110012932



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1