RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04091 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reimbursed for Early Return of Dependents (ERD) travel and transportation entitlements from his overseas assignment at Kadena AB, Japan. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was approved for ERD for his dependents in May 2008, but when he found out that it was approved, he was notified of a pending assignment. He was counseled by his assignment counselor that his permanent change of station (PCS) orders would be written to include the entitlements that an ERD order would have provided. He was told he would be able to claim all entitlements once he arrived at his follow-on assignment. He has since found out that he could have had an ERD order published and that his PCS orders will not cover his dependents as he had previously been counseled. In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of statements from his commander and superintendent, and AF Form 899, Request and Authorization for Permanent Change of Station - Military. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant. On 17 June 2008, the applicant received unaccompanied PCS orders to Incirlik, Turkey. The applicant’s PCS orders state “Member has an approved follow on assignment but has elected not to claim dislocation allowance (DLA). Member has also agreed to relocate dependent(s), ship HHGs and/or store HHGs at own expense to Oakland, CA.” _______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAPP recommends denied. DPAPP states the applicant elected an unaccompanied tour to Turkey and received an approved follow-on assignment to Hawaii. The applicant was not eligible for an ERD because he was notified of an assignment prior to their travel. The applicant states he applied to return his family early from Kadena in accordance with (IAW) the ERD program and it was approved on or about 1 June 2008. However, the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) informed him his ERD was no longer valid because he had an assignment to Turkey. In this case, the applicant was notified of his assignment to Turkey before his dependents began their travel; therefore, his dependents could travel on his PCS orders. His PCS orders were published on 17 June 2008 and his family departed Kadena on 2 July 2008. The applicant’s orders reflected that he would relocate his dependents and ship/store HHG at his own expense in order to retain his follow-on assignment. DPAPP states IAW AFI 36-2110, Assignments, the purpose of the follow-on assignment is to reduce PCS costs and increase family stability. In order to be considered for a follow-on assignment, an airman agrees, up front, that they will not relocate their dependents or ship/store HHGs, at government expense, to any location other than the follow-on location. The applicant’s order reflected he would relocate his dependents and ship/store HHGs at his own expense in order to retain his follow-on assignment. The complete DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 19 November 2010, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). ________________________________________________________________ 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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-2010-04091 in Executive Session on 21 July 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Oct 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 10 Nov 10. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Nov 10.