RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:  				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02600
								INDEX CODE:  131.05
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX			COUNSEL: NONE 

	XXXXXXXXXXXX					HEARING DESIRED: YES 

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Air Force pay for him, his family, and their household goods (HHG) to be shipped back to Okinawa, Japan, or wherever else he chooses as a retirement location.  

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had a retirement date of 31 August 2003, 116 days of terminal leave, and 30 days permissive temporary duty (PTDY) already approved when the 13 March 2003 Stop Loss message was released.  He didn’t receive a copy of the Stop Loss message until after the Retirements and Separations section cancelled his retirement and put his out-processing on hold.  He withdrew his retirement paperwork so he could get his promotion eligibility reinstated for the 03E9 promotion cycle.  After he got retainability to withdraw his retirement, he was given a stateside assignment.  According to the 13 March 2003 Stop Loss message, members will not be placed on stop loss if they depart before 2 May 2003 on terminal leave or PTDY which is immediately followed by terminal leave.  The message also states members having an approved retirement/separation date before 2 May 2003 may continue to ship household goods or depart on permissive TDY/terminal leave.  He had an approved retirement date and retirement orders as of 18 February 2003.  In addition, he was departing on PTDY immediately followed by terminal leave on 8 April 2003, prior to the 2 May 2003 cutoff date.  The Stop Loss message also states in paragraph Q, “members that were involuntarily extended in the military under the 21 September 2001 Stop Loss and have an established retirement date as of 2 May 2003 will not be involuntarily extended by this Stop Loss message.”  His 31 August 2002 retirement was cancelled and he was voluntarily extended in the military by the 21 September 2001 Stop Loss, and, he had an established retirement date of 31 August 2003 as of 18 February 2003.  Therefore, he was improperly retained in the Air Force under the 13 March 2003 Stop Loss message.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

__________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 25 March 1977, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 19 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the rank of Senior Master Sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 1 August 1999.  

The applicant was non-selected for promotion by the 02E9 Supplemental Evaluation Selection Board and the 03E9 Central Evaluation Board.

On 1 August 2004, the applicant was notified that the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) approved voiding his 8 September 2002 EPR; however, they disapproved his request for supplemental promotion consideration for the 03E9 Central Evaluation Board because the corrective action was not initiated prior to the original central evaluation board.

On 4 October 2004, the applicant was notified by AFPC/DPPPWM, that his records would be considered on 2 May 2005 for 03E9 supplemental promotion consideration due to his voided EPR.  

The applicant was honorably discharged from active duty effective 30 September 2004 and retired effective 1 October 2004.  He served 27 years, 3 months, and 7 days on active duty. 

__________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPR recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  DPPR states that while the applicant claims he should have been authorized to depart on PTDY/Terminal Leave in April 2003, there are no supporting documentation or evidence that he was approved for PTDY/Terminal Leave prior to the implementation of Stop Loss on 2 May 2003.  Based on his voluntary withdrawal in July 2002 of his previous retirement application, he was no longer exempt from the provisions of Message #1 (OEF-I) Air Force Stop Loss Approval and Guidance dated 13 March 2003.  Additionally, having no evidence of approved PTDY/Terminal Leave, he remained affected by the provisions under the same message.  

DPPR states that in accordance with the JFTR, members are entitled to a home of selection (HOS) which is anywhere within the Continental United States (CONUS) including Alaska and Hawaii.  Retiring members are also entitled to move to their place of enlistment (POE) or home of record (HOR).  The applicant’s POE and HOR are the state of Missouri; therefore, he is not entitled to HHG shipment to an overseas location.  

DPPR states the applicant had the option to request either a waiver to the Stop Loss policy, extend his approved retirement date, or withdraw his retirement request.  He voluntarily requested to withdraw his approved retirement on two separate occasions and subsequently requested an assignment to a stateside base.  It is DPPR’s opinion that the applicant provides no facts warranting an exception to the JFTR and should not be provided an opportunity that other Air Force members are not given.

The DPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Any action he took (like withdrawing his retirement in July 2003) would never have occurred if he were not wrongfully affected by the March 2003 Stop Loss.  His approved AF Form 988s for his PTDY/Terminal Leave were retained by the Military Personnel Office (MPF) Retirements and Separations section for their use.  When he was wrongfully subjected to Stop Loss, the paperwork was not given back to him.   When he withdrew his retirement in July 2003 to make himself eligible for promotion, the MPF destroyed the documents.  He has supplied documents showing where Special Operations Component, United States Pacific Command (SOCPAC) and his commander approved his overseas PTDY and Terminal Leave Force Protection Plan (FPP) for April-June 2003 for the purpose of house/job hunting.  They would never have approved his FPP had his commander not already approved his PTDY/Terminal Leave.  All the documents he has provided in his original package clearly shows he had 30 days PTDY and 116 days of Terminal Leave.  His PTDY was scheduled from 8 April 2003 to 7 May 2003 and his Terminal Leave was scheduled 8 May 2003 to 31 August 2003.  AFPC/DPPR knows this, and they are just trying to cover up their mistake of wrongfully retaining him in the Air Force under the May 2003 Stop Loss.  The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.  

__________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant requests that the Air Force pay for him, his family, and his HHG to be shipped back to Okinawa, Japan, or to whatever location he chooses.  We note that since the filing of this appeal, the applicant retired effective 1 October 2004.  Prior to his retirement, the Air Force granted the applicant’s request to be stationed stateside, after he applied for a one-year extension, in order to transition to “stateside way of life.”  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we find no evidence to show that the applicant was not afforded the same opportunity for shipment of HHG allowed by the JFTR, as any other member in his situation.  Therefore, we agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  In view of the foregoing, we conclude that no basis exists to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.  

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

__________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 17 February 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02600 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 16 Aug 04, with attachments.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dtd 24 Aug 04, with atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Sep 04.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dtd 17 Sep 04, with atchs.
	Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dtd 6 Oct 04, with atchs.