RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00320

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, Item 7a, Place of Entry into Active Duty (PLEAD), and Item 
7b, Home of Record (HOR) be corrected to reflect College 
Station, Texas.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She is originally from Tucson, Arizona but elected Texas as her 
HOR immediately upon entry into active duty which is consistent 
with her first duty station as an Air Force Institute of 
Technology student at Texas A&M University in college Station, 
Texas.  However, this election was not reflected on her DD Form 
214, hence the error in question.

She noticed this error after reviewing her discharge paperwork 
in preparation for her spouse’s pending retirement.  Rectifying 
this error has significant implications to her Department of 
Veterans Affairs benefits in Texas, particularly with respects 
to the Hazlewood Act for her children’s college tuition.

In support of her request, the applicant submits a copy of her 
DD Form 214 and a copy of orders and associated supplemental 
information showing her initial entry into active duty as Texas 
A&M University, College Station, Texas.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 1 Jun 
94.

On 3 Mar 99, AF Form 100, Request and Authorization for 
Separation, listed the applicant’s PLEAD as United States Air 
Force Academy and Tucson, Arizona as HOR.

On 1 Jun 99, the applicant was furnished an Honorable discharge, 
and was credited with 5 years and 1 day of active service.  The 
applicant’s DD Form 214, Item 7a lists USAF Academy, CO as PLEAD 
and Item 7b lists Tuscon, AZ as HOR.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibit C 
and D.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPANF2 recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  The Joint Federal Travel Regulation, 
Volume 1, Appendix A, reads HOR is the place recorded as the 
individuals home when commissioned, appointed, enlisted, 
inducted, or ordered into a tour of active duty.  Additionally, 
it states the place recorded as the individual’s home when 
reinstated, reappointed or ordered into the tour of active duty 
unless there is a break in service of more than one full day.  
Only if a break in service exceeds one full day may the member 
change the HOR.  Any such correction must be fully justified and 
the home, as corrected, must be the member’s actual home upon 
entering the Service, and not a different place selected for the 
member’s convenience.  Appendix A1 defines PLEAD as the place of 
acceptance in current enlistment, commission, or appointment for 
an active Service member.  For cadets of a Service academy, they 
will list the place at when the member attains a military status 
or which the member enters the service.  Note:  Generally this 
is the academic institution and not the member’s HOR.  

The applicant did not have a break in service of more than one 
full day; therefore a change to the applicants PLEAD and HOR is 
not authorized.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPANF2 evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or an injustice.  It is important to note that in the 
United States Military, there is a difference between the terms 
HOR and Legal Residence.  These may or may not be the same 
address.  At the time of the applicant’s commission, her PLEAD 
was recorded as the USAF Academy, Colorado and her HOR was 
Tucson, Arizona. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 15 Sep 14 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  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 not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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 opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
of injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested 
relief.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; 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-2014-00320 in Executive Session on 10 Feb 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jan 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPANF2, dated 25 Mar 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 23 Apr 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Sep 14.