Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07697-01
Original file (07697-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

NAVY 

ANNEX

2 

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

S

LCC:lc
Docket No. 7697-01
22 July 2002

From:

Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records

To:

Subj:

Ref:

Encl:

Secretary of the Navy

Review of

naval-F=

(a)

Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

DD Form 149 w/attachments

(1)
(2) NPC memo 5420 PERS-4415, 18 Jun 02
(3)
(4)
(5)

OPNAV memo 7220 Ser  
Petitioner's response, 22 Mar 02
Appendix A, JFTR definition of PDS

N130C3/02U0053, 8 Feb 02

Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject,

1.
hereinafter referred to as Petitioner,
enclosure 
applicable naval record be corrected to show that Petitioner is
entitled to Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) at the without
dependent rate for unit of assignment.

(l), with this Bbard requesting, in effect, the

filed written application,

The Board, consisting of Messrs. Agresti, Frankfurt, and

2.
Ms. Hare reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 16 July 2002 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that
the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the
available evidence of record.
the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

Documentary material considered by

The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining

3.
to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice, finds as
follows:

a.

Prior to filing enclosure (1) with this Board, Petitioner
exhausted all administrative remedies afforded under existing law
and regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b.

In March 2000 Petitioner was assigned as a battalion

surgeon to the First Marine Division located at Twentynine Palms,
CA.

He was scheduled to report in August 2000.

Docket No. 7697-01

C .

Approximately 2 weeks prior to reporting to Twentynine

Palms, Petitioner received a call from the First Marine Division
Surgeon directing him to fill a billet as battalion surgeon at
Camp Pendleton, CA.
understanding that the permanent change of station (PCS) orders
would be changed to Camp Pendleton.

Petitioner accepted this assignment with the

d.

Petitioner tried repeatedly to get his orders modified
assigning him to Camp Pendleton so that he would be entitled to
payment of BAH for Camp Pendleton.
Twentynine Palms and Camp Pendleton is as follows:

The BAH comparison rate for

cy
2000

2001

2002

Twentvnine Palms

Cp Pendleton

Difference

$499.70

$576.70

$637.70

$833.70

$$1,032.70

$$1,244.70

$334.00

$456.00

$607.70

Petitioner has been working and living in the Camp Pendleton area
and has been receiving Twentynine Palms BAH which is far less
Therefore, his out of pocket expenses
than Camp Pendleton BAH.
have been significantly higher than the BAH payment he has been
receiving.

e.

The detailer for the General Medical Officer advised

Petitioner that no official billet exists for an additional
medical officer at Camp Pendleton.
modify his orders.
temporary additional duty from Twentynine Palms to Camp Pendleton
Because
for the duration of his assignment to Twentynine Palms.
Petitioner has been paid
BAH is based on the unit of assignment,
BAH for Twentynine Palms and not Camp Pendleton where he is
living and working.

Petitioner was given officially no-cost

Consequently she would not

f.

(3), the

In correspondence attached as enclosures (2) and  

offices having cognizance over the subject matter involved in
Petitioner's application recommended denial, commenting that his
official permanent duty station remains Twentynine Palms and the
orders were not changed because there was not an official billet
Consequently his request for
for Petitioner at Camp Pendleton.
BAH for Camp Pendleton should be denied.

N130C3 has

OPNAV 

2

commented that BAH is paid for the PDS and since his orders
assigned him to Twentynine Palms that is his PDS.
advise that Petitioner reported to Twentynine Palms on 24 July
2000.

They further

Docket No. 7697-01

Petitioner responded, enclosure  

(4), to the OPNAV  

N130C3

(3.

the 1st Marine Division Surgeon.

advisory stating that he had never reported to Twentynine Palms
but reported to Camp Pendleton on 24 July 2000 as he had been
directed by CDR McDonald,
situation is a quality of life issue and Petitioner feels he has
suffered an injustice because he reported to Camp Pendleton as
directed yet his housing compensation is not commensurate with
his peers living in the same area.
After approximately eight
months at Camp Pendleton he was given the option of continuing to
reside at Camp Pendleton and receive BAH for Twentynine Palms or
moving his household goods at personal expense to Twentynine
Palms.
had not created this situation.

He felt that neither of these options were fair since he

The

h.

Appendix A, Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR),
enclosure (5) which is derived from the Statute and publishes
guidance on entitlements relating to a PCS defines the PDS as
"the place to which a member is actually assigned for duty,
including a place from which the member commutes daily to the
assigned station  
Petitioner commuted daily from his
place of residence to Naval Hospital, Camp Pendleton.

- - 

-'I.

CONCLUSION:

Clearly

Petitioner was directed to report to

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record,
notwithstanding the comments contained in enclosures (2) and
the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the
requested relief.
Camp Pendleton by the 1st Marine Division Surgeon and did so.
Under such circumstances the Board concludes it is not fair that
Petitioner should be expected to pay out of pocket expenses
because he followed orders.
have been realigned from Twentynine Palms to Camp Pendleton and
Petitioner should not have to pay the penalty because this was
not done.
The Board concluded that it would be only fair and
equitable to Petitioner to authorize BAH for the Camp Pendleton
area where he is residing.

It appears that the billets should

 

(3),

Docket No. 76-97-01

Accordingly, the Board recommends the following corrective
action.

RECOMMENDATION:
That Petitioner's naval record be corrected, where  appropriate,
to show that

a.

The Permanent Change of Station Orders which reassigned

Petitioner from San Diego to Twentynine Palms, CA were modified
on or about 22 June 2000 to direct the Petitioner to report to
the Naval Hospital, Camp Pendleton, CA.

b.

Petitioner was authorized BAH at the single rate

effective 24 July 2000 for his unit of assignment which was Camp
Pendleton, CA

C .

That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in

Petitioner's naval record.

It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's

4.
and that the foregoing is a true and
review and deliberations,
complete record of the Boards proceedings in the above-entitled
matter.

The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your

5.
review and action.

Reviewed and approved:

SEF 
I

2W10 

(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)

Counsel

4



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09157-07

    Original file (09157-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    9157-07 16 Jun 08This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 June 2007. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07669-10

    Original file (07669-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 EC Doc No. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show that Petitioner is entitled to Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) for his prior duty station (PDS) based on a close proximity permanent change of station (PCS) move. The orders...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01820-07

    Original file (01820-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNO memorandum 7220 Ser N130C4/07U0250, 20 March 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07440-98

    Original file (07440-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. opinion furnished by CNO memorandum 7220 SER of which is attached. DC 20350-200 0 IN REPLY REFER TO 722 0 Ser 30 Mar 99 N130C3/062_gg MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTIONS OF NAVAL RECORDS Via: Assistant for BCNR Matters, Pers-OOXCB Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08239-06

    Original file (08239-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    8239-06 1 Nov 06Dear Petty Officer:This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 Usc 1552.A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 October 2006. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02649-06

    Original file (02649-06.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 May 2006. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02804-06

    Original file (02804-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNO 7220 Ser N130c4/06u0260, 21 April 2006, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05603-02

    Original file (05603-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 September 2002. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. opinion furnished by CNO memorandum 7220 Ser of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07662-00

    Original file (07662-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2001. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. for a member who executes a no-cost move from a duty station with a higher BAH rate to a duty station with a lower BAH rate, when the member did not move dependents.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 12354-08

    Original file (12354-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    They note that the Petitioner was counseled that the orders were no cost orders and he was not entitled to move at government expense. Petitioner’s incentive payment will not exceed what the cost would be to U.S. Government for moving 4,578 pounds. The HHG section MC Logistics Base, Albany, GA will compute the incentive payment due based on a constructive weight of 4,578 pounds and notify DFAS/IN of payment due to the Petitioner).