RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02544
		INDEX CODE:  121.03

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Leave charged from 2 July 2002 to 18 July 2002 (16 days) be restored to his account.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While enroute to his new Permanent Duty Station (PDS) at Mountain Home AFB, ID, from Misawa AB, Japan, he was unavoidably delayed from 2 July 2002 to 18 July 2002 in Colorado Springs, Colorado, while his automobile was being repaired.  He argues that he should not have been charged leave for circumstances that had arisen that were beyond his control.  

Applicant’s statement and documentary evidence in support of his request are at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFSMD), is 21 April 1982.  He is currently serving in the grade of technical sergeant (E6).

Applicant left Misawa AB, Japan, on 17 June 2002, with a Report Not Later Than Date (RNLTD) of 30 July 2002 to Mountain Home AFB, ID.  His orders authorized one travel day.  He was authorized circuitous travel enroute as he planned on taking leave in Puerto Rico and was also authorized reimbursement of travel expenses to pick up his car in storage in Colorado Springs, CO.  He arrived at his new PDS on 18 July 2002.

Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) informally advised that applicant’s leave balance upon departing on Permanent Change of Station (PCS) was 14.5 days; he was charged 29 days leave upon reporting to his new duty station at Mountain Home AFB.  Thus his leave balance was negative 14.5 days.  As of 23 December 2002, applicant had a leave balance of 1.5 days.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSFM recommends denial and states that applicant was not considered Present for Duty, TDY, PTDY or in an enroute status for the stated period.  Applicant therefore could only have been in a leave status and was being paid all pay and allowances for the contested period.  

Applicant states that he called his new duty station’s MPF about his car problems and was advised by someone in the MPF that he should stay with his car until repairs were made.  Investigation has revealed that not only can the applicant not provide the name of the person he spoke with at the MPF; no one in the MPF can recall ever speaking with the applicant. 

In accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-3003, Military Leave Program, applicant was charged leave for authorized absence in excess of authorized travel time, PTDY, and proceed time.  

A complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 October 2002 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.  (Exhibit D)

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  There is no substantiated evidence that the Air Force caused the delay in the applicant reporting for duty.  We find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02544 in Executive Session on 13 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dtd 6 Aug 02, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSFM, dtd 22 Oct 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 25 Oct 02.