RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00610
		INDEX CODE:  128.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His overseas station allowances be reactivated effective December 1996 and he receive retroactive payments at the with-dependent rate.  In the alternative, applicant requests he be authorized to receive the overseas station allowances effective immediately.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) was drafted to provide services the latitude to compensate members under various conditions in order to preclude a decline in living standards regardless of elected assignment status to include maintenance of two households.  AFPC/DPAIP's interpretation of the JFTR was enacted upon with the most stringent of guidelines.  AFPC does not make the best application of the rules in determining OCONUS dependent location COLA allowance to serve all members' requests or needs.  The matter of dependent nationality and location should serve as premise for station allowance as it would for any OCOUNS COLA location.  He submitted a request to receive the station allowances but his request was denied.  He discussed the matter with Navy personnel who have led him to believe that his request should have been granted.  

In support of his request applicant provided copies of email communications and documents associated with this application for continued station allowance.  His complete submission, with attachments is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 1 Sep 78.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Aug 94.

While stationed at Kadena AB, Japan, the applicant received an assignment to Keflavik NAS, Iceland.  On 8 Apr 96, he requested permission to leave his dependents in Japan and that he continue to receive station allowances in accordance with the JFTR, paragraphs U5222F3, U9100C2, U9100C3, and U9301B.  His dependent spouse is a Japanese citizen and at the time did not have a U.S. passport or citizenship.  On 5 Aug 96, AFPC/DPAIP1 denied his request because it did not meet the requirements of the JFTR.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAPP1 reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPAPP1 states that the applicant was projected for reassignment to Keflavik Iceland and elected to serve the 12-month unaccompanied tour on the basis his spouse is a Japanese citizen and his children are enrolled in the local school system.  His request for continuation of station allowances was disapproved on the basis he had the option to serve the accompanied tour in Iceland.  He submitted a reconsideration request based on a cost analysis comparison.  Budget officials reviewed his request and the disapproval remained firm.  Upon completing his tour in Iceland, he served a 24-month unaccompanied tour in Germany and is now assigned at Yokota AB serving a 24-month unaccompanied tour.  Disapproval of his request was consistent with the rules of the Dependents Remaining Overseas Program and the provisions of the JFTR.  DPAPP1 recommends denial of his request for current payment of station allowances at the with-dependent rate because he is unable to serve the accompanied tour due to high-year-of-tenure restrictions. 

The DPAPP1 evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that AFPD 36-30 states that a compensation and benefits package should be equitable, fiscally responsible, and recognize the unique conditions of service.  It further states that an equitable compensation and benefits package should prevent a decline in members' living standards, maintain pay comparability with the private sector, and maintain reimbursements at levels equal with expenses incurred incident to military service.  These references should have been considered when his request was submitted.  His situation was not unimagined by the Per Diem and Transportation and Allowance Committee as reflected by the verbiage within the JFTR.  The guidance addressing continuation of station allowances for members electing to go from an accompanied tour to an unaccompanied tour does not dictate any prerequisites.  The paragraph does not say that the entitlement should be disallowed because the member elected to go unaccompanied.  His appeal should have been elevated sooner to highlight the possible disparity of entitlements afforded Air Force members in relation to other components by the enactment of the policies contained in AFI 36-3020.  He does not believe this index has developed a transparent and responsive station allowance program as AFPD 36-30 stipulates.  DPAPP1's guidance has taken the monetary allowance entitlement process from the comptroller's sphere of expertise and framed it into the non-monetary benefits and entitlements arena.  

Today, if his dependents relocated to a CONUS location he would receive single rate COLA for his duty location based on their ZIP code.  DFAS should equally as well be able to initiate payments for his dependents residing in Okinawa.

In further support of his request applicant provided a personal statement, copies of email communications; an excerpt from AFI 36-3020, Family Member Travel; an excerpt from AFPD 36-30, a DRO Fact Sheet, an excerpt from the JFTR, and a website printout.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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 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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In this respect, it appears that the decision to travel unaccompanied was his choice and evidence has not been provided which would lead us to believe that his unaccompanied travel was due to extenuating circumstances that were beyond his control.  We see no evidence that the standards of Air Force policy were not appropriately applied in this case or that he was treated differently than others in similar situations.  The Board also noted guidance established by PACAF regarding the DRO program which states that approval is authorized only when delay of dependent departure is necessary for reasons beyond the member's or dependent's control.  Examples provided include illness or hospitalization of the dependent, completion of a school term, lack of acceptable housing, or difficulties related to securing transportation for dependents of household goods.  We note his contention that information he received from Navy personnel has led him to believe that his request should have been granted.  However, we feel compelled to note that policies of different services may differ based on the particular mission needs of each respective service.  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 that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 Docket Number 02-00610 in Executive Session on 1 Aug 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Feb 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPP1, dated 15 Mar 02.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Mar 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Jun 02, w/atchs.