RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02436

				COUNSEL: NO

				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His 29 days of lost leave be restored.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer (PEBLO) advised 
him not to take leave until final disposition of his Physical 
Evaluation (PEB) Board. 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a letter from 
his commander, excerpt from AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation 
Board and the AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Member’s 
Qualification Status.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is on active duty serving in the grade of chief 
master sergeant.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the advisory opinion from the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility at Exhibit B.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1PS recommends denial.  In accordance with AFI 36-3212, the 
member may not take leave outside the local area once their 
medical case is in the disability channels.  Paragraph 4.4.5 
states AFPC/DPPD may authorize exceptions to the leave 
restrictions outside the local area when warranted by 
circumstances and when approval of leave will not adversely 
affect case processing.

The PEBLO recommended the applicant save his leave until the 
PEB/Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) process was completed.  
However, the applicant also revealed that preparation of the 
Environmental Occupational Safety Health Inspection prevented 
him from scheduling leave.  

The AF Form 422 provided does not preclude the applicant from 
taking leave during the DES process.  The applicant and his 
commander verified the Environmental Occupational Safety Health 
Inspection also contributed to the applicant not scheduling 
leave.  The commander’s special leave accrual (SLA) restoration 
request memorandum is not appropriate for this type of BCMR 
submission.  SLA describes provisions when deployments or 
assignments, in hostile-fire or imminent danger pay and/or 
missions at national level prohibit members from using leave.

The applicant’s request lacks evidence that shows how the length 
of the PEB/MEB prohibited him from taking leave.  It appears the 
applicant saved leave in excess at his own will.  

The complete A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He disagrees with the NGB evaluation.  He was briefed by the 
PEBLO, he asked the right questions and was given the wrong 
information.  He followed the PEBLO recommendation; therefore, 
his leave should be restored.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
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.  After 
thoroughly reviewing the applicant’s complete submission, to 
include his response to the NGB/A1PS advisory, we are not 
persuaded his record warrants the requested correction.  The 
applicant’s contentions were noted to include his commander’s 
supporting letter; however, we believe he has not provided 
sufficient evidence to override the rationale provided by the 
NGB/A1PS.  Therefore, 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 
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-2013-02436 in Executive Session on 28 January 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 May 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 31 Jul 13. 
	Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Aug 13.
        Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 6 Sep 13,
           w/atchs.