RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04043 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reimbursed the cost of moving his household goods (HHG) from self-storage at his home of record (HOR) in Green Bay, Wisconsin to Bolling AFB, DC in conjunction with his reassignment from the Pentagon, Washington DC to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Bolling AFB, Washington DC. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force should have paid for the movement of this stored HHG. In 2009, he stored household goods (HHG) at his home in Green Bay, Wisconsin at no cost to the Government when he PCS’d from Offutt AFB, NE to Greece. Subsequently, he was reassigned from Greece to the Pentagon to attend Joint Military Attaché School, and was supposed to return to Greece at the completion of the school. However, due to a disqualifying medical condition, he was unable to complete Attaché School, and was reassigned to the Pentagon. In Jan 12, he PCS’d from the Pentagon to Bolling AFB, MD. When he shipped his HHGs which were stored at his HOR in Wisconsin to Bolling AFB, MD he paid for the shipment out of pocket. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant serves in the Regular Air Force in the grade of colonel (O-6). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: PPA HQ/ECAF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. In 2009, in conjunction with his reassignment from Offutt AFB, NE to Souda, Greece, the applicant placed some HHGs into self-storage at his HOR in Green Bay, Wisconsin. On 2011, the applicant was reassigned from Souda, Greece to the Pentagon, Washington DC. The Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) advises household goods (HHGs) may be authorized for reassignment between activities at the same permanent duty station if the gaining commander certifies the HHG relocation is mission essential, in the Government’s best interest, and not primarily for the member’s best interest. AFI 24-502, Excess Cost Procedures, requires the certification letter be retained in the member’s file. It appears the appropriate authorities determined a HHG move did not meet the JFTR requirements and declined to issue a funding order. The regulations are specific about the requirements to qualify for a funded move, and the applicant did not meet those requirements. In addition, the applicant had the opportunity to move the HHGs in question upon his PCS to Greece and again at the time of his initial PCS to the Pentagon. A complete copy of the PPA HQ/ECAF evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluations was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Feb 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of PPA HQ/ECAF and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. The Board does not believe the applicant submitted sufficient documentation to justify approval given the gaining installation commander’s certification for HHG relocation, required by the JFTR, is not available in his file and did not accompany his application. 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-2014-04043 in Executive Session on 9 Jul 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Sep 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, PPA HQ/ECAF, dated 29 Dec 14. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Feb 15.