MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           17 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000037511

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred Eichorn		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A -  Application for correction of military 
                             records
	Exhibit B -  Military Personnel Records (including
	                  advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that she be granted in and around mileage reimbursement for travel between Fort Belvoir, Virginia and Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) for the period from 23 October 1997 and 30 June 1999.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that when she was first assigned to Fort Belvoir she contacted her section chief to inquire about the specific location where she would be working because she had already bought a house in Dale City, Virginia based on her assignment to Fort Belvoir.  She was informed at this time that she would be primarily working at Fort Belvoir but would also be helping out where she was needed.  She also learned that a finance noncommissioned officer (NCO) at WRAMC would be retiring soon and she would be working there to help out.  She inquired if this would be temporary and was told that they would see how things work out.  After 4 months of working at WRAMC she again asked about moving back to Fort Belvoir but was told she could not move at that time.  She then asked if she could be authorized in and around mileage but was refused because they did not have the money and also that WRAMC was her primary duty site.  She then requested a military vehicle to commute between Fort Belvoir and WRAMC but this was also denied.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

She continuously served on active duty for 20 years and 20 days until her retirement on 31 March 2000.  At the time of her retirement she was serving in the rank of sergeant first class/E-7 in military occupational specialty 73Z as a Finance Senior Sergeant.

On 16 June 1997, Orders Number 167-3 reassigned the applicant from Detachment A of the 208th Finance Battalion in Europe to the 99th Regional Support Command, Oakdale, California for duty with the 398th Finance Group, Fort Belvoir.  Her reporting date was 27 September 1997.

On 24 October 1997, she was diverted from the 398th Finance Group and was reassigned to the Defense Military Pay Office (DMPO) at Fort Belvoir, with an effective date of 20 October 1997.  By her own admission, the applicant was informed that she would be replacing a retiring NCO at WRAMC and that there could be no firm commitment that this duty station would change in the  future.  In addition, on 6 November 1997, she signed her written performance standards, in which she acknowledged that her usual duty station would be at WRAMC.  

On 14 November 1997, the applicant closed on a house that she had purchased in Dale City, Virginia.  The distance from Dale City to Fort Belvoir is 12.3 miles and it is 33.3 miles to WRAMC.  There is no order in the record effecting a reassignment of the applicant to WRAMC from Fort Belvoir.  At this time the applicant had been informed that her usual daily work site would be WRAMC; however, there is no evidence of record that shows that she requested reimbursement for in and around mileage at that point.

On 31 January 1998, the applicant submitted a claim for reimbursement for in and around mileage.  In this claim she requested payment for her travel between her Dale City residence and WRAMC, between 2 January and 30 December 1998, which she indicated was a 50 mile daily round trip commute.  

In August of 1999, the applicant contacted her member of Congress in order to seek redress on her claim for in and around mileage.  The Army reply to her Congressman indicated that her claim had been denied.  The reason cited was, in effect, that there were no provisions for reimbursing a member for travel to and from their primary duty site, which in the applicant’s case was WRAMC.  On 
16 August 1999, the applicant’s member of Congress passed this reply on to the applicant and concluded his inquiry into the case.

In connection with this case, the Board solicited an advisory opinion from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), Indianapolis, Indiana.  They indicated that they did not support of the applicant’s claim for reimbursement and provided a copy of a response they had submitted to a local Inspector General which provided their logic for nonconcurrence in this case.  They indicated, in effect, that although the Federal Joint Travel Regulation (JFTR) provided for reimbursement for mileage exceeding the normal commuting distance from a member’s residence to an ordered alternate duty site in some cases, in the applicant’s case there were no orders authorizing the travel.  In addition, they stated that it was established that the applicant’s primary duty location/station was WRAMC.  Because WRAMC was her primary duty site, there were no provisions for mileage reimbursement for travel by privately owned conveyance to and from this duty site.

Subparagraph U3505 of the JTFR (Travel in the Primary Duty Site Area) provides the policy and procedure for reimbursement for transportation expenses in the primary duty site area.  In effect, it allows that reimbursement of in and around travel may be authorized/approved for travel between a member’s residence and a duty site, but only in cases that involve travel to other than the usual primary duty site.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, it is concluded:
1.  The Board concurs with the advisory opinion provided by the DFAS which states, in effect, that the applicant is not authorized reimbursement for in and around travel because WRAMC was her usual primary duty site.  Therefore, the Board determined there was no basis for granting the relief requested by the applicant.

2.  The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was aware that her primary duty site would be WRAMC before she finalized the location where she would live and prior to her reassignment to the Fort Belvoir DMPO.  Further, the Board found that commuting between Dale City, Virginia and WRAMC was not extreme, and in fact is not out of the ordinary for personnel living and working in the National Capital Region.  

3.  The Board determined that the applicant’s duty station assignment to WRAMC was not improper and resulted in no particular injustice to her.  Thus, the Board concluded it would not be appropriate to reimburse her for in and around mileage that is not ordinarily available or provided to all the soldiers who must commute comparable distances to their duty stations in the National Capitol Region.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___cmf __  ___fe ___  ___rjw __  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037511	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/05/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	N/A	
DISCHARGE REASON	N/A	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  297	128.1400	
2. 		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.