RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00330 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reimbursed for payment of lodging for Temporary Duty (TDY) En-Route travel performed while on Permanent Change of Station PCS) Orders. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While not on his orders, his wife and 5-month old daughter traveled with him TDY to attend KC-135 Initial Qualification Training, en-route to his next duty assignment. Because his dependents were not included on his orders, Temporary Living Facility (TLF) quarters were unavailable, as was a non- availability letter. He elected to rent a house off base knowing that he would be reimbursed only the cost equal to that of on base lodging. He paid a total of $6,366.08 to live off base, which included $5,187.00 for rent, $970.24 for power and $208.84 for utilities. If he had stayed on base, he would have paid $56.00 per day totaling $7,168.00. He saved the government $801.92 staying off base. He and his wife both signed the lease agreement and as it turns out, the Air Force expected her to pay half of the rent for the time he was TDY, even though she is his dependent and a stay-at- home mom. Over the 128 days he was compensated $24.68 per day for lodging, totaling $3,159.04. This is $3,207.04 less than what he paid to live off base and is $4,008.96 less than what he would have been paid had he stayed on base. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force as a Captain (Capt)/O-3. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) included at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HAF/A1PA recommends disapproval of the applicant’s request for per diem payment and requests additional supporting documentation in the form of a signed lease in order to determine the facts for the period in question. The applicant exercised his duties as a prudent traveler by securing a short- term leased property for the duration of his en-route TDY. The absence of this supporting documentation makes it difficult to attest to the accuracy of the payments made to him. He states his wife, a dependent, was a co-signor on the lease, substantiating the reimbursement In Accordance With (IAW) Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) paragraph U4130-H1. The amount of lodging reimbursement was correctly limited to the equal shared amount of the lease between the lessees. A complete copy of the HAF/A1PA evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He was unable to provide a copy of the lease agreement in the timeframe mentioned due to an out-of-country deployment. He attached a copy of the lease agreement he and his wife signed and indicates she was a co-signor purely for insurance reasons. The record shows he exercised his duties as a prudent traveler by securing a short-term leased rental property for the duration of his en-route TDY assignment and saved the government $801.92 as a result of staying off base. He requests he not be punished with any further reimbursement for the full lodging rate simply because his spouse/dependent had signed the lease. (Exhibit D.) ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HAF/A1PA recommends disapproval for per diem payment. The applicant provided a copy of the signed lease showing both he and his spouse as lessees substantiating reimbursement IAW JFTR paragraph U4130-H1. The JTR has the force and effect of law and is issued primarily under the authority of 37 USC §481 and §1001 and there is no authority to reimburse the spouse’s portion of the rental cost based on the spouse’s signature as the lessee. In addition, the applicant retained Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) for his previous duty station IAW JTR, paragraph 10402 during the TDY period while en-route to the new Permanent Duty Station. He had the option to relocate his dependents to the new PDS and receive BAH for the new location. The decision to have the dependents accompany him to the TDY location was a personal choice made by the applicant and his family. A complete copy of the HAF/A1PA evaluation is at Exhibit F. A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 13 Nov 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G). 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 warranting correction of the applicant’s records to fully reimburse lodging expenses for en-route TDY. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal and all attachments, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt it’s rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. In this respect, the applicant exercised his duties as a prudent traveler by securing a short-term leased rental property for the duration of the en-route TDY, however; he incorrectly determined potential reimbursement would be limited to the full lodging amount he would be eligible to receive had he stayed on base. Moreover, the applicant contends his spouse signed the lease solely for insurance purposes to protect his family; nevertheless, this does not override the JTR’s full force and effect of law and substantiate reimbursement at the full lodging rate. As such, in accordance with the JTR paragraph 4130-H1, he was correctly limited to the equal shared amount of the lease between himself and his spouse due to the spouse signing the lease. In our deliberations of this case, it appeared to us that the applicant and his family made a personal decision to have his dependents accompany him to his TDY location, yet chose not to seek a modification to his orders authorizing his dependents to travel with him. Furthermore, he could have listed his spouse as an occupant on the lease without having her sign it, thereby not limiting reimbursement to an equal shared amount. We note that the applicant received a standard continental United States Basic Allowance for Housing while en- route to his permanent duty station in addition to his lodging reimbursement. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00330 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AF/A1PA, dated 3 Mar 15. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Mar 15. Exhibit E. Letter, APPLICANT, dated 6 Jun 15. Exhibit F. Memorandum, AF/A1PA, dated 10 Nov 15 15. Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Nov 15.