Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001689
Original file (20140001689.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

	

		BOARD DATE:	  17 December 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140001689 


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, in effect, that he be granted a basic allowance for housing (BAH) waiver as an exception to policy.   

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he moved his family from Fort Polk, Louisiana to Miami, Florida prior to going to his temporary duty (TDY) station based on information given to him by finance personnel at Fort Polk.  They told him he would be reimbursed the difference in BAH when he filed his travel voucher after his TDY and reporting to his new duty station.  His son was due to start school while he was at his TDY station and he wanted to get his family settled.  He sold his house in July 2013 and took his family to Miami on 
13 August 2013.  The difference between BAH at Fort Polk and Miami was almost double and he paid the difference out of his own pocket the 10 weeks he was at his TDY station attending school, which was the only time in his 20-year career that he had been TDY en-route.  He filed his travel voucher as he had been informed and his claim was denied because he had not filed for a BAH waiver in advance of his move.  His request does not involve financial gain as he paid for the time period in question out of his own pocket and simply wants what the government would have paid had he been properly advised at the time he planned his family’s move.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his permanent change of station (PCS) orders, Request for BAH Waiver, and Lease Agreement.



CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was commissioned as a U.S. Army Reserve second lieutenant on 11 May 1994 and entered active duty on 11 June 1994.  He was appointed as a Regular Army second lieutenant on 16 August 1994 and has remained on continuous active duty.  He was promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel on
1 February 2011.

2.  On 26 February 2013, while the applicant was assigned to Fort Polk, PCS orders were published transferring the applicant to the “USA ELM HQ USSOUTHCOM, MIAMI, FLORIDA” effective 7 January 2014 with TDY en-route to the 10-week Joint and Combined War-Fighting School at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Virginia.

3.  On 13 August 2013, he moved his family to Miami and signed a lease for a rental property on 26 August 2013.

4.  On 6 December 2013, the applicant submitted a request for a BAH waiver by e-mail to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-1 and that office denied his request because there was no supporting documentation to show he had received erroneous information from finance.  Additionally, he was advised that BAH waivers are not retroactive nor are they based on financial hardship.

5.  In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-1 which opines that the applicant’s PCS orders do not address his dependents and that requests for waivers of advance travel of dependents are consistently disapproved when submitted after the report date for the sole purpose of financial gain.

6.  The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for response and he responded to the effect that as an officer of 20 years he is frustrated by being constantly misdirected on how to resolve what should be a simple claim to be paid the proper amount he was due for moving his family from his old duty station to his new duty station.  His request is not based on any financial gain.  He is simply requesting to be paid what he would have been paid had he been properly advised to begin with.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that he should be paid the BAH rate for Miami effective the date he moved there (13 August 2013) as an exception policy due to being misinformed at his losing duty station as to the proper procedures has been noted and appears to have merit.
2.  Notwithstanding the opinion from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff        G-1, that the applicant did not provide specifics as to who in finance misinformed him as to the proper procedures for moving his family, it is not reasonable to presume that a Soldier would make such a move at the risk of having to pay such a large amount of money out of his personal finances without the prospect of being reimbursed.  

3.  It is also noted that had he been properly advised, he could have submitted his request for advance movement of his dependents before he departed Fort Polk and given the circumstances, would have had a better chance of approval.  In any event, he would have been informed at the time that he would not be reimbursed if he moved his family without authorization and he would have been able to make a more informed decision.

4.  There does not appear to be any financial gain associated with the applicant’s request as he has already spent the monies involved out of his own pocket and he is simply requesting that he be paid the BAH that he would have been paid if he had been properly advised beforehand.

5.  Therefore, as a matter of equity, his records should be corrected to show that on 1 August 2013 he was granted approval for advance travel of his dependents to Miami, Florida and payment of BAH entitlements for that location.

BOARD VOTE:

___x_____  ___x_____  __x___  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by 




showing that on 1 August 2013 he was granted approval for advance travel of his dependents to Miami, Florida and payment of BAH entitlements for that location.




      _______ _   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)                                         AR20140001689



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140001689



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017537C071113

    Original file (20060017537C071113.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant was instructed by Aviation Branch, HRC-Alexandria, that he would be authorized to move his dependents and HHG to his HOR during his deployment and that he would receive BAH for the HOR location. There is no evidence the applicant ever contacted the Transportation Office at Fort Huachuca or Fort Hood. When ordered on a PCS, the member is only allowed to move his dependents at Government expense to the new PCS location.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003636C070208

    Original file (20040003636C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003635C070208

    Original file (20040003635C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2013 | 20130020933

    Original file (20130020933.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant provides: * his marriage license * Orders 213-50, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Monroe, VA, dated 1 August 2011 * a copy of his wife's teaching contract with New Beginnings Charter School, Bedford – Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, New York, dated 15 August 2012 * Orders 271-1008, Installation Management Command (IMCOM) – Pacific Region, Military Personnel Division, Republic of Korea on 27 September 2012 * a lease agreement for a residence in Queens, NY * a memorandum for record (MFR), signed...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001721

    Original file (20140001721.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020924

    Original file (20110020924.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    a. Paragraph 1-6 states the EFMP allows AHRC to consider the special education and medical needs of exceptional family members during the assignment process and reassigns Soldiers, when readiness does not require a specific reassignment, to an area where the family member's needs can be accommodated. The evidence shows the applicant complied with his assignment instructions and reported to Fort Huachuca as directed; however, he left his family in Hawaii due to his wife's enrollment in the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002909

    Original file (20090002909.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant informed this official that PPTO authorized him to allow his family members to stay at his previous station of Washington, D.C., and his continued receipt of the BAH based on that rate through June 2006. f. On 17 November 2005, the Finance Officer informed the applicant that the BAH payment he was receiving at the Washington, D.C. rate was in error and that PPTO had no authority to grant permission and to annotate this on his orders. h. In January 2006, the applicant was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03022

    Original file (BC 2013 03022 .txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2013 | 20130008379

    Original file (20130008379.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    f. The applicant's request was also for the dependents to complete state testing, which was through 13 May 2011, with the end of the school year date of 10 June 2011, not 5 July 2011. h. He cannot make clear enough that though the advisory opinion states the program has been in the JFTR since 2005 and he was finally able to see the ALARACT message in the August/September 2011 time frame, he has executed five PCSs since 2005 and he has never been apprised of the availability of the program. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02156

    Original file (BC-2005-02156.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He had a choice of either renting a free sector house and, possibly, incurring out of pocket expenses during his tour or to rent a Dutch government controlled house within his OHA, but without light fixtures, curtains, and floor coverings. It is also pointed out that free sector rent for the type of house required by the applicant averaged 1500 Euro while the OHA maximum was 1400 Euro. I believe in reaching their decision, the majority has given too much weight to the fact that there does...