DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
Bee
Doc No. 10179-10
11 Mar 11
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Ter Secretary of the Navy
Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO
Ref: (ay Title 10° U.S.c¢. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) PCS orders
(3) CMC memo 4050.1M LPD-2-MAE
1. 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 he is entitled to reimbursement
for cost of travel on a foreign flag carrier to Stuttgart,
Germany.
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. George, Pfeiffer, and
Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and
injustice on 18 January 2011 and, pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the corrective action indicated below should be
taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material
considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval
records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record
pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice,
finds as follows:
a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and
regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b. In May 2010, Petitioner was being reassigned from the
Marine Corps War College (MCWAR) Quantico, VA to the Special
Operations Command Europe, Stuttgart, Germany. He was booked on
a U.S. carrier by Carlson Wagonlit SATO Travel (the commercial
travel office) for a direct flight from Washington DC to
Stuttgart Germany.
Doc No. 10179-10
c. Petitioner wished to take leave in Boston, MA after
checking out of Quantico and before departing enroute to
Germany. He further desired to depart enroute to Germany
directly from Boston after his leave, without returning to
Washington DC.
d. Towards that end, Petitioner self procured his own
transportation using a foreign flag carrier. He coordinated his
revised travel plans with the Installation Personnel
Administration Center (IPAC). The IPAC included the revised
travel plans in Petitioner’s Permanent Change of Station (PCS)
orders. See enclosure 2. Petitioner alleges that the IPAC made
no objection to his use of a foreign flag carrier.
e. On 28 June 2010, Petitioner and his dependents
travelled from Boston to London and on to Stuttgart, Germany
using British Airways, a foreign flag carrier.
f. Upon arrival in Germany, Petitioner was denied
reimbursement for the cost of the British Airways flights. He
had not used a commercial travel office to arrange his
transportation, he had used a foreign flag carrier without prior
authorization and U.S. carriers were available for his
transportation needs.
g. Petitioner asks that the record be changed to allow
reimbursement for the cost of the British Airways flights based
on his prior coordination of his transportation with the TBAC.
h. In correspondence attached as enclosure (3), the office
having cognizance over the subject matter addressed in
Petitioner's application has recommended the request he denied.
Headquarters United States Marine Corps (LPD-2) reasons that
Petitioner failed to arrange his travel through a commercial
travel office and failed to use a U.S. flag carrier when one was
available to meet his transportation needs.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record,
notwithstanding the comments contained in enclosure (3), the
Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable
action. The Board gave careful consideration to the comments in
enclosure (3) and recognized that Petitioner failed to follow
established procedures. However, in the Board’s view, Petitioner
sufficiently advised the IPAC of the revised travel plans. By
including the revised travel plans in Petitioner's PCS orders,
Doc No. 10179-10
the IPAC ratified them sufficiently that the costs associated
with the British Air flights should be reimbursed.
RECOMMENDATION :
That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate,
to show that:
a. Petitioner was furnished a "certificate of non-
availability” of US flag carrier for the transportation to his
new duty station.
b. Petitioner will be entitled to reimbursement of the
cost for the travel from Quantico, VA to Stuttgart, Germany in
the amount of $2,589.70, (not to exceed what the cost would have
been to the US Government on a U.S. flag carrier).
c. A copy of this Report of Proceedings will be filed in
Petitioner’s naval record.
Ay, Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the
Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that quorum was
present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the
foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's
proceedings in the above entitled matter.
[ule 4 phew
ROBERT D. 4SALMAN WILLIAM J. HESS, III
Recorder Acting Recorder
Sis The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your
review and action.
W. DEAN
Executive , & ct Or
Tate Wo — aftr |
ROBERT L. WOODS
Assistant General Counsel
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs) 3
1000 Navy Pentagon, Rm 4D548
Washington, DC 20350-1000
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003032C070206
The applicant provides page 2 of his HHG briefing document; his clearing papers; a document titled "Processing Allied Moves" he states came from the local finance office; deposit information for the government transportation funds; a 9 May 2003 letter of authorization for personally procured shipment of HHG via a commercial carrier; two undated statements from Allied International with billing estimates; a weight certificate; the 6 June 2003 letter requesting payment of excess funds as an...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03390
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was advised by the traffic management office (TMO) at Spangdahlem Air Base (AB), Germany, that he could ship his vehicle at personal expense and be reimbursed up to what it would cost the government to ship the vehicle. In addition to shipping his POV at personal expense without authorization from the TMO, the applicant did not use a United States (U.S.) flag vessel to ship the POV. The applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01850
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AF/A4LE recommends denial, indicating the applicant did not obtain prior approval to self-procure travel during his PCS travel. We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00761
Flag carrier service is not available must be provided to the member and must be attached to the request for reimbursement. As to the applicant’s request for reimbursement for the mileage of this vehicle, we concur with the JPPSO-SAT/ECAF assessment and are of the opinion that the applicant should be reimbursed for the mileage to get the vehicle to the POV port or vehicle processing center serving the old permanent duty station, since it appears that he would have been entitled to...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00556
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00556 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be reimbursed the cost of self-procured tickets for herself and two dependents for travel to her permanent change of station (PCS) assignment to Kenya via approved circuitous travel with a stopover, for leave en route, in London. A1PA states that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00428-06
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 Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of travel for his dependent wife from Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Bourgeois, Boyd, and J. Hicks, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 20 March 2007 and, pursuant to its regulations,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8281 13
The Board, consisting of Mr. Zsalman, Mr, Exnicios, and Mr. Ruskin, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 21 July 2014 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. See enclosure (6). See enclosure (4).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8282 13
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 reimbursement of commercial airfare EVCKSE . Even though Petitioner was told to purchase the ticket by his command, there was 4 U.S. certified air carrier ticket available for the first leg of travel. When Petitioner received TDY/TAD orders to Luzon Province, Republic of the Philippines,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8279 13
The advisory opinion points out the following evidence to support its position: in accordance with the Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR), Petitioner was paid correctly on his travel claim when he was not reimbursed for his non-U.S. certified air carrier ticket. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and notwithstanding the opinion expressed in enclosure (2), the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting corrective action. When Petitioner...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8283 13
27 July 2013. see enclosure (3). The advisory opinion points out the following evidence to support its position: in accordance with the Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR), Petitioner was paid correctly on her travel claim when she was not reimbursed for her non-U.S.. certified air carrier ticket. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and notwithstanding the opinion expressed in enclosure (2), the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting...