RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03593 COUNSEL: NO
(Counsel removed 15 Apr 15)
HEARING DESIRED:	YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1.	Expunge his record of all charges relating to filing fraudulent travel vouchers.

2.	Reimburse him legal fees incurred when he hired a civilian defense attorney for his Article 32 hearing [for charges of filing fraudulent travel vouchers].

3.	Forgive a debt issued by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) [for overpayment of housing allowance and travel/per diem allowances].

4.	Forgive US Department of Treasury fee which is based on 28% of the DFAS debt amount in request #3.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
There is no basis for disciplinary action with regards to the charges of filing fraudulent travel vouchers. The travel vouchers were identified as fraudulent (following an Office of Special Investigation (OSI) inquiry) because he received monetary entitlements for being in a travel status [from his Home of Record (HOR)] when he was actually residing within a commuting distance from his duty station.

Prior to filing the travel vouchers he received counselling from his local legal office, and he was advised it was allowable to change his HOR, from South Carolina to Louisiana, because of his intentions to permanently relocate there in the future. This change of HOR, further resulted in overpayment of Basic Allowance of Quarters (BAQ) [which is a subset of the amount in item #3 above.]

His Article 32 hearing was dismissed after his civilian defense attorney provided evidence to confirm he was provided legal confirmation the HOR change was not illegal. He believed it necessary to go beyond the (provided) Area Defense Counsel, to

ensure his life, as well as the lives of his family were not ruined by miscounseling offered by his local legal office.

Further, the debt was determined as a result of an interpretation of the Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) that differs from his local legal office interpretation. He inquires as to who’s interpretation should take precedence. Also, the DFAS debt was levied only after the charges were filed against him; therefore, with the charges dismissed, the debt should be as well.

Finally, his DFAS file should not have been forwarded to the Department of Treasury while a hearing was pending with DFAS, resulting in [the amount in item 4 above].

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 25 Nov 88, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. According to his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, his place of entry was recorded as     .

From 17 Mar 89 to 17 Sep 98, the applicant served in the regular Air Force until he was transferred to the Air Force Reserve. According to his DD Form 214, his HOR at time of entry was recorded as        .

According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, with a date  of separation of 24 Jan 00, his HOR at time of entry was recorded as
.
According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, with a date  of separation of 23 Feb 02, his HOR at time of entry was recorded as
.
From 6 Mar 06 to 29 Feb 08, the applicant was credited with
1 year, 11 months, and 25 days of active service, and according to his DD Form 214, his HOR at time of entry was recorded as   .

On 29 Oct 11, the applicant was relieved from current assignment and assigned to the retired reserve, effective 1 Apr 12, until he becomes eligible for retied pay.

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
DFAS-IN recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant has requested relief from repayment of debt due to over payment of Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ), mileage, and travel advances. The applicant received BAQ based on a Home of Record (HOR) in , versus residency in , per the applicant’s AF Form 594, Application of Start, Stop or Change Basic Allowance for Quarters. This resulted in overpayment for BAQ as well as payments for per diem and travel pay for duty not within commuting distance. The applicant has already exhausted DFAS-IN Hearings and Appeals, as well  as applying for a waiver, which was denied. Per the letter included in the applicant’s documents: Recoupment of Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) was made in accordance with the Joint Travel Regulation (JFTR), Chapter 10, section 13, as the BAH rate is based on the primary residence location at the time called/ordered to active duty. The rate continues during the duration of the tour. Commuting distance is defined as travel within the limits of and the surrounding area. This is further defined in memorandum from the AW/CC, dated 3 Sep 08. Subject: Policy on Reserve Travel Status in which zip code is considered within commuting distance in accordance with the JFTR. When within commuting status, a member receives no per diem, but one round trip for travelers on orders. The member’s residence at  , placed  him  within  commuting  status  when  he  came  on  orders
1 Mar 06. It is recommended to disapprove  the  applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the DFAS-IN evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant contends debt charges filed against him were unjust and forced him to seek legal assistance from a law firm. The applicant stated he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), by his Wing Commander, after being interviewed by OSI agents for changing his home of record in early 2009. The LOR, while unclear from the evidence provided, could possibly have been given for wrong doing in relation to the applicant changing his HOR. AFPC/DPSIM cannot state whether the person administering the LOR was just or not; rather discussion is limited to whether the proper procedures of AFI 26-2907, Unfavorable Information File (UIF), were followed. However, since the LOR was not provided as evidence, it is unable to determine if proper procedures were followed.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In addition to his request to be present when the Board considers his case, he contends the OPR put little effort into providing evidence against him. Further, he is confused as to why the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals states, in April 2015, they cannot adjudicate his case without sufficient documentation, when he has information they already held a hearing and reached a decision in July, 2014.

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, to include his rebuttal response; however, we have determined the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Specifically, while the applicant may not have been found guilty of criminal charges for the fraudulent vouchers, the Board did not find him entitled to any overpayments he received (as indicated in the DFAS and Department of Treasury debts levied upon him). The Board notes the applicant sought legal advice with regards to changing his home of record, the issue at hand is filing travel vouchers when he was indeed not in a travel status. The applicant should have sought the opinion of his local finance office, or DFAS, as those entities are the authoritative source for travel related entitlements, not the legal office. Therefore, the Board recommends no items in the applicant’s official records be corrected or removed. Additionally, the Board does not have the authority to reimburse the applicant for legal services he obtained on his own accord. As indicated in the DOHA 13 Apr 15 memoranda provided by the applicant, it appears the applicant may have some administrative relief outside of Air Force channels and is encouraged to pursue this course of action. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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 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-2014-03593 in Executive Session on 28 Jul 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03593 was considered:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 13 Oct 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Memorandum, DFAS, received 8 Jan 15.
Exhibit D.	Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 10 Jun 15. Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jun 15.
Exhibit F.	Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Jul 15.