RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03436
		INDEX CODE:  121.03

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

26 days of leave be restored to her leave account for the following dates:

a.	One day for the period 21 December 2002.
b.	Nine days for the period 22 December to 30 December 2002.
c.	Four days for the period 31 December 2002 to 3 January 2003.
d.	Two days for the period 29 January 2003 and 4 February 2003.

In addition to the above, she requests 10 house-hunting (Permissive TDY – PTDY) days be reinstated, her PTDY start date be adjusted to ensure her three days of travel time are not included in the PTDY, include any leave she lost as a result of all the changes made to her leave account, and to be put on active status beginning 3 May 2003 until disposition of an injury she incurred while on terminal leave.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her duty section was given a week off over the Christmas 2002 holiday’s (no leave charged).  She contends she left the area on the 22nd of December 2002 and returned on 30 December 2002.  Consequently, she was erroneously charged leave for the period 21 December 2002 to 3 January 2003 even though she had not submitted a leave slip and she was, in fact, present for duty (PFD) for the period 31 December 2002 to 3 January 2004.  Additionally, she was charged leave for 29 January 2003 and 4 February 2003 when she was actually PFD except for the weekend between the two dates.  She contested the leave she was charged and, with no documentation of any kind, HQ ANG/FM processed the leave against her.  ANG/OM adjusted her terminal leave resulting in early termination of her tour without notifying her until a month after the termination action was taken.

She contends her travel days, as authorized by separation orders, should be 25 to 27 February 2003.  Her PTDY should be 28 February to 9 March 2003, and her terminal leave should be 10 March to 18 May 2003.  

She was injured on 3 May 2003 while she considered herself on terminal leave.  As it stands, because she was incorrectly charged for leave, her terminal leave ended on 12 April 2003 instead of the 18 May 2003 date she believed to be accurate.  When she injured herself, she reported to an emergency room for treatment and was subsequently scheduled for future appointments including a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) exam.  She found out she was no longer in the system because her DOS had changed as a result of being charged the disputed leave.

In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided copies of several pertinent email trails, dental records for 31 December 2002, receipts from various vendors, a property pass for a laptop signed on 3 February 2003, leave and earnings statements (LES’s), leave request slips, separation orders, correspondence between her and her commander, traffic management office (TMO) paperwork, cell phone log records, and medical record’s documenting her knee injury.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a former active duty member of the National Guard Bureau (NGB), was scheduled for release from active duty and was to return to an ANG unit as a traditional guardsman effective 18 May 2003.  Leave is applied for and approved or denied by means of the Air Force Form 988, Leave Request/Authorization.  On 21 February 2003, the applicant applied for ten days of PTDY from 25 February to 6 March 2003 and for Terminal Leave from 7 March to 18 May 2003 and the leave was approved as evidenced by AF Form 988’s.  

The NGB charged her leave for the following dates: 18-19 December 2002, 21 December 2002 to 2 January 2003, 29 January 2003, 4 February 2003, and 25 February to 12 April 2003 for a total of 66 days.  Only the two AF Form 988’s submitted by the applicant on 21 February 2003 are accounted for in the above leave debits.  

Her original request for PTDY and Terminal Leave were on separate AF Form 988’s for ten days PTDY (leave approved by the commander but not debited against the leave account) from 25 February to 6 March 2003, and for 73 days of Terminal Leave from 7 March to 18 May 2003.  There is no other record of AF Form 988’s that show any of the remaining leave was either applied for or approved/disapproved.  However, on 28 March 2003, five entries were made to the LEAVEWEB system debiting the applicant’s leave account for the 66 days mentioned above.  Her PTDY was considered denied and her Terminal Leave was adjusted from 83 days total to 53 days.  These debits adjusted her DOS from 18 May 2003 to 12 April 2003.  On 3 May 2003, she injured her knee and reported to the emergency clinic at Ft Leavenworth for treatment.  She was not eligible for further treatment as her DOS had changed from 18 May 2003 to 12 April 2003.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI states that because of the many conflicting statements from the applicant and the NGB, DPPI cannot absolutely conclude whether leave was appropriately charged for all periods.  However, regarding applicant’s statement that she and her co-worker’s were afforded a week off with no leave charged over the Christmas 2002 holiday, DPPI contends that because she left the local area, the free Christmas week did not apply.  Therefore, DPPI states nine of the twelve days charged (31 December 2002 to 2 January 2003) were valid.  As the remaining three days cannot be accounted for, DPPI defer’s the decision as to whether or not the days were appropriately charged to the AFBCMR.

DPPI states that because of conflicting statements the two days of leave charged the applicant of 29 January and 4 February 2003 are deferred to the AFBCMR for a decision as to whether or not the days were appropriately charged.

Regarding the issue of PTDY (ten days of leave charged within the period 25 February to 14 April 2003), DPPI notes there is no evidence in the LEAVEWEB system that the applicant ever applied for or her commander ever approved PTDY.  DPPI does mention email traffic indicating verbal conversations took place wherein the applicant was made aware her PTDY had not been approved as she was separating and not retiring thereby removing her from PTDY eligibility.  As she was not eligible for PTDY in accordance with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3003, DPPI recommends her request to reinstate PTDY be denied.

Regarding applicant’s contention she was not made aware that her DOS had changed, DPPI contends email traffic between the applicant and her supervisor on 10 March 2003 indicates the change in the amount of leave charged to the applicant had changed her DOS to 12 April 2003.

DPPI recommends relief be denied for the nine days of leave requested by the applicant for the period 22 December to 30 December 2002.  DPPI further recommends her request to have ten days of PTDY restored also be denied.  Due to insufficient documentation and conflicting statements, DPPI is unable to reach a conclusive recommendation relating to the remaining six days of leave and defer this recommendation to the AFBCMR.  DPPI notes that should the AFBCMR approve her request and grant the additional six days, her DOS would still be prior to the date of her injury, thereby eliminating the possibility of medical hold entitlement.

DPPI’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant disputes the ANG/DPPI findings and states that her application was received in December 2003 by DPPI and sat for over 10 months with absolutely no proof being provided by the NGB that she had taken the leave they allege she had taken.  She indicates in email conversations between herself and DPPI that DPPI, in an email response to the applicant in March 2003, stated “It has been difficult, to say the least, for me to get sufficient input from all the parties addressed in your (applicant’s) DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record).”  The NGB has not produced, or has bothered to address, the lack of any leave slips or leave numbers that show she took leave.  Nor have they identified how they came up with the dates they accuse her of taking leave.  She notes the only evidence provided has been a LEAVEWEB report that shows entries that were input into the system in April 2003, after she had left the NGB.

Regarding DPPI’s statement on the week of leave over the Christmas holiday that was not to be charged, the applicant contends that if AFI’s were followed all the time, there would be less need of corrections.  In this case, AFI’s were not followed as she and her coworkers were instructed to fill out a leave slip for the time period in case anything happened during the time they were gone.  If nothing happened then the leave slips were to be destroyed by supervisors after the holidays.  She presents information on how coworker’s leave was handled and cites dental and medical records as proof she was in the local area during the times she was charged leave for being “out of the local area.”  

DPPI’s statement of deferral to the AFBCMR on her claim to have been in the office preparing for a conference on the dates 29 January and 4 February 2003 is wrong as she provided proof she was in the local area and not on leave.  She provides local receipts dated over this time period and military documentation showing her household goods (HHG) were packed on the 4th of February and shipped on the 5th of February 2003.  

Regarding her request to reinstate PTDY, applicant states she provided actual AF Form 988’s showing her PTDY to have been requested and approved.  She addresses DPPI’s contention she was not eligible for PTDY by regulation by stating she had conversations with her commander and immediate supervisor regarding PTDY eligibility and was told her commander would approve ten days of PTDY for house hunting.  She has the signed AF Form 988’s with leave numbers as attachments to her application.  

Regarding DPPI’s contention that an email notified her of the change in the amount of leave she was being charged and the resultant change to her DOS, she states that she was aware of the attempt to charge her the leave but was surprised by the fact that even though the dispute was ongoing, ANG/FM was allowed to debit her leave account for the disputed days in the LEAVEWEB system.  She questions FM’s authority to go into the system and debit her leave account while the dispute over the leave was ongoing.  She also questions how her supervisor could fax her new leave slips with the disputed dates on them for her signature and let FM charge her the leave without receiving the signed leave slips.

In summation, she states the NGB had her application for over ten months and has provided no more documentation or evidence that leave was taken than to use emails that she sent in as attachments to her BCMR application.  It is further apparent that her application was not reviewed in detail by DPPI as the majority of their answers to the apparent unanswered questions could have been found in the supporting documentation (17 attachments) to her original application.  

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  The applicant contends she was wrongly charged leave on several occasions leading up to her permanent change of station (PCS) from her assignment with the National Guard Bureau (NGB) to the XXXXX Air National Guard (XXANG).  The disputed leave consequently shortened her date of separation (DOS) from 18 May 2003 to 12 April 2003 thereby removing her from active duty prior to an injury she suffered while on terminal leave.  After careful review of all the information provided, other than for the period 22 to 30 December 2002, we can find no documentation that indicates the applicant should have been charged leave for the days in question.  Therefore, we are of the opinion she should be reimbursed 10 days of leave for PTDY and 3 days of leave for travel that she was entitled to and was approved by competent authority.  Additionally, she should be reimbursed for 1 day of leave charged for 21 December 2002, 4 days of leave for the period 31 December 2002 to 3 January 2003, and 2 days of leave charged for 29 January 2003 and 4 February 2003, resulting in a reimbursement of 20 days of leave.  The additional 20 days of leave will extend her DOS to 2 May 2003, prior to the date of her knee injury, maintaining her ineligiblity for medical treatment.  Therefore, we recommend that the records be corrected as indicated below.

______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that she was not released from active duty on 12 April 2003, but was continued on active duty in a terminal leave status until 2 May 2003, on which date she was released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve. 

______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 13 January 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jul 04, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 26 Oct 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Oct 04, w/atchs.

                                   

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON DC

Office Of The Assistant Secretary

AFBCMR BC-2003-03436

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that she was not released from active duty on 12 April 2003, but was continued on active duty in a terminal leave status until 2 May 2003, on which date she was released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve.