RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-04783

	COUNSEL: NONE
	
 	HEARING: NO	

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Home of Record (HOR) on AF IMT Form 766, Extended Active Duty (EAD) Orders reflect California.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When her EAD orders were generated, block 5 was left blank.  She is claiming California as HOR as this is the location she is choosing to reside after completion of her service.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is an active duty Air Force Captain.  

The applicant’s AF IMT Form 24, Application for Appointment as Reserve of the Air Force of USAF without Component, dated 14 Feb 12 reflects Chesapeake, VA as HOR.

The applicant’s AFRS IMT Form 1317, Commissioning Information for all Health Professions Applicants, dated 14 Feb12 reflects Chesapeake, VA as HOR.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2LT recommends denial.  In Feb 12, the applicant was recruited in the Air Force from the civilian sector and recorded her HOR as Chesapeake, VA.  The Joint Federal Travel Regulation, Volume I, Appendix A1, defines HOR as “The place recorded as the individual’s home when commissioned, appointed, enlisted, inducted or ordered into a tour of active duty.” Only if a break in service exceeds one full day may a member change their HOR.  The HOR is the location identified by the individual upon entering the service, it is not a location where the individual is later assigned or a location selected for convenience or affiliation.  

The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 23 Mar 18 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2LT and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2018-00241 in Executive Session on 22 May 18:

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following in Docket Number BC-2018-00241:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 15 Sep 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, w/atchs, AFPC/DP2LT, dated 23 Apr 18.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 23 Mar 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.