RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00646 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reimbursed for child care expenses incurred while attending Joint Military Attaché School (JMAS). Further, as a result of this child care expense issue, he was removed from attaché training and seeks reimbursement for costs [an unspecified amount] incurred in preparing for this assignment.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He is being denied reimbursement for child care expenses for the hours his children were in school. However, before training began, he sought out and received email from the program manager leading him to believe his expenses would be covered. Without this prior approval, he would not have hired a nanny as a child care provider.

Upon beginning attaché training in the summer of 2012, he started receiving reimbursement of child care costs. When his children started school in September, he continued to submit for reimbursement and his request were initially approved (further validating his contention he was indeed operating within the parameters of the child care reimbursement program). In the months following, his reimbursement requests stopped being approved and he spent a significant time diligently following up and requesting status updates on his requests. In December, an audit was conducted and it was discovered he should not have been receiving reimbursement. When he sought resolution with his student chain of command, the erroneous prior approval was admitted, yet  he was confronted with hostility, unprofessionalism and (fear of anticipated) reprisal. This confrontational meeting led him to consider assistance from the office of the Inspector General (IG). He took the situation to the Air Staff level functional leadership, for hopes of amicable resolution, yet they seemed to be more concerned with his potential IG complaint rather than dealing with the fact he was erroneously advised his expenses were reimbursable.

The situation resulted in his wrongful removal of the attaché program. He believes the removal from training and termination of his follow-on attaché assignment was more about his statement of seeking IG assistance than the actual child care issue. Further, the harassment and mistreatment continued after removal from the program by sending him to an assignment counter to any of his requests, such as remaining in the DC area (which could have been easily accommodated). By removing him from an attach position, he is out (an estimated) $10,000 spent on clothing and other relocation expenses for him and his family in preparing for this position.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 26 May 00, the applicant was commissioned in the Regular Air Force in the grade of second lieutenant (O-1).

In June 2012, according to information provided by the applicant, he began JMAS attaché training.

On/about 21 Feb 13, according to information provided by the applicant, he was removed JMAS attaché training.

On 30 Sep 15, after his application to the AFBCMR was submitted, the applicant was relieved and retired, effective 1 Oct 15, and was credited with 15 years, 4 months, and 5 days of active service this period.

According to information obtained by the IG, no record of a formal complaint on behalf of the applicant exists.

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:
SAF/IAPA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice to warrant awarding reimbursement of child care expenses. The JMAS Childcare Reimbursement program is designed to offset a portion of childcare costs incurred by JMAS trainees in order to facilitate Defense Attaché Service (DAS) and DAS-designee spouse attendance in the Spouse  Training Program (STP), Language Training and Individual Protective Measures training prior to the couple going out on their assignment. The applicant and his spouse were authorized to participate in this program.

The applicant was officially notified a desk audit on his child care claims had been completed, and it had been discovered he had been reimbursed for child care for a period of time when his two children were in fact attending school, and that no child care had been provided. He was notified of the specific vouchers which had been erroneously paid, the requirement to repay a specific amount, and the options for repayment. As explained at the time, like all Federal Agency entities, JMAS is prohibited from authorizing expenditure of funds for services not rendered.

Additionally, it should be noted on each Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Form 100-A signed by the applicant, the block identifying the number of hours of care that is being claimed is titled “Concurrent # of hours spouse is in training and child is in childcare.” Since no child care was rendered concurrent with the number of hours his spouse was in training, he had no claim to make.

[Prior to his retirement] The applicant had not exhausted all reasonable administrative remedies prior to submitting this application for relief to the AFBCMR. The applicant was afforded administrative remedies, IAW the 18 Jan 13 DIA Letter of Indebtedness, but he chose not to pursue them. He did not petition for a hearing to contest the validity or amount of the debt, nor did he request a waiver or remission of the debt. In fact, upon being told that since he had not been utilizing child care services for the period in question he would have to reimburse the government, he stated it wasn’t a problem and he would just file an application to the AFBCMR to get the money back, as he had done on a previous occasion for a different matter.

Further it is recommended to deny the applicant’s request for reimbursement of (an estimated) $10,000 he spent on clothing and other items in preparation of a future attaché assignment. It is repeatedly mentioned at various points of the training pipeline that students should not start purchasing things that they might think they need for a DAS assignment. For example, students are warned that clothing allowances, if authorized, are not processed until after arrival at the attaché duty location. Additionally, students are advised, due to the many reasons that could ultimately cause them to not go out on their attaché assignment, they should be careful in making household goods purchases in advance of the assignment as there were no reimbursements for these items, just as there wouldn’t be for any other changed military assignment (i.e. there is no reimbursement for heavy coats bought in anticipation of an assignment to a cold weather location that ultimately changes to a warm weather location).

This advisor opines this request an attempt to create an impression that he was wronged in having been removed from JMAS training in order to build sympathy for his position on the reimbursement request of child care expenses. This seems very apparent when considering he has not taken any previous administrative action to remedy this particular part of his claim, nor has he even specified the amount of money he is claiming.

With regards to applicant’s contentions of wrongful removal from training, he demonstrated poor judgment and ethical problems. When this situation was first discovered, the applicant had the benefit of the doubt and could have made simple restitution. His actions and behavior in dealing with the child care issue led leadership of JMAS, DAS, and SAF/JAPA to question his suitability for a diplomatic posting and mutually agreed to the recall of his USAF nomination.

A complete copy of the SAF/IAPA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air  Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 30 Jun 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 the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its 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-2015-00646 in Executive Session on 12 Jan 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Memorandum, SAF/IAPA, received 24 May 15. Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jun 15.