RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02535 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive full reimbursement of $4,934.43 for expenses he incurred as a result of a personally procured household goods (HHG) shipment. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) addresses indeterminate temporary duty (TDY) in terms of entitlements of military members with dependents, and single military members. Since he chose to marry a fellow military member, he is classified as single. He submits that his situation fits neither of the two cases. If his spouse was a dependent, he would have been able to move his HHGs to a designated location, and back to Air Force Special Operations Command, Hurlburt Field, FL, at government expense during his deployment. If he was single, his HHGs would have been packed and stored at government expense until his return. He feels that he and his spouse are being penalized for being married. In support of his request, applicant provides a personal letter, copies of his AF Form 1610, Request and Authorization for TDY Travel of DoD Personnel, AF Form 899, Request and Authorization for Permanent Charge of Station, a copy of his deployment Special Order TE-0694, and a copy of documentation associated with his HHGs move. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant is currently in the Regular Air Force in the grade of major. The applicant received orders for an indeterminate TDY assignment to Kabul, Afghanistan, with a reporting date of 2 June 2006. He was informed by the Transportation Management Office (TMO) that the only entitlement he had under the indeterminate TDY orders was storage of his property. Before his TDY, his spouse received permanent change of station (PCS) notification from Hurlburt Field, FL to Pope AFB, NC. Based on information from AFPC on joint spouse entitlements and the possibility of the deactivation of her unit due to base realignment and closure (BRAC) in 2007, the applicant and spouse elected to ship all their HHGs to Pope AFB, NC under her PCS orders. After the deactivation of his spouse's unit, the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) was not able to find a position for the applicant at Pope AFB after completion of his indeterminate TDY and therefore he was returned to Hurlburt Field, FL. He contacted the TMO to discuss the return of his portion of HHGs that initially was moved to Pope AFB under his spouse's order. TMO advised him that he did not have a shipping entitlement under the indeterminate TDY order. AFPC/AF/A4 also advised the applicant that they did not have authority to grant approval for shipment. The applicant paid to have his HHG shipped back to Hurlburt Field, FL from Pope AFB, NC. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Joint Personal Property Shipping Office, (JPPSO) ECAF, recommends denial and states that the applicant's deployment order did not allow for shipment of HHGs but did reflect authorization for non-temp storage of HHGs. It also indicated that the applicant did not desire to use non-temp storage of his HHGs. The decision to have his portion of HHGs ship under his spouse's orders was based upon the assumption that he would receive orders to join his spouse. The fact that the expected event did happen does not provide additional entitlements not authorized by the JFTR. ECAF's complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 August 2008, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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 an error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that reimbursement is warranted. His contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR). In this respect, we note that the applicant received proper counseling regarding his HHG property shipment and that he did not have shipping entitlement under the indeterminate TDY order. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 BC-2007-02535 in Executive Session on 25 September 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Aug 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, JPPSO/ECAF, dated 7 Aug 08. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Aug 08.