RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00918 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reimbursed for travel expenses in the amount of $3955.92 for costs incurred under the Student Dependent Travel Program (SDTP). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was improperly advised by staff that his children qualified for travel under the SDTP, and purchased the tickets for their travel in good faith. His travel voucher claim was denied by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) on the basis that his dependent’s travel at government expense was not authorized per regulations. He submitted an appeal for reimbursement of travel expenses regarding this matter to the Defense Office of Hearing and Appeals (DOHA), and again, his claim was denied. He believes an injustice has occurred and would like to be reimbursed for these expenses. In support of the appeal, the applicant provides a letter of support, background documentation related to his claim for reimbursement of travel expenses, copies of the Inspector General (IG) Report, and documentation related to his DOHA claim. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant currently serves in the Regular Air Force in the grade of colonel. In May 2007, the applicant was reassigned from Dover AFB, Delaware to Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii. He submitted a SDTP request for his two minor children to travel to Hawaii, and on 9 May 08, orders were approved and issued. After his children departed Hawaii, he filed a travel voucher for reimbursement and his travel claim was denied by DFAS. He submitted an appeal to the DOHA, and his case, and subsequent appeals were also denied. The applicant filed an IG complaint requesting reimbursement of his children’s student dependent travel claim. An investigation into the matter was conducted from 24-26 Mar 09, and on 3 Jun 09, the IG investigation concluded no illegality or violation of a standard or regulation that could require further inquiry or investigation, and the allegations were not substantiated. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: HQ USAF/A1PA recommends denial. HQ USAF/A1PA indicates that the Air Force Element staff had been counseling members incorrectly on the DSTP, and the applicant was erroneously authorized dependent student travel orders for his children. As a result, he purchased the travel at the government rate. Although he acted in good faith when using the orders to obtain the children’s airline tickets, there is no legal authority to reimburse him. The complete HQ USAF/A1PA evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Throughout every stage of his appeal he has seen instances where agencies could have been clearer on the facts of this case, to include the recommendation sent to the Board by HQ USAF/AlPA in their advisory opinion. The SDTP has been published, advertised and endorsed by Air Force leadership throughout the command headquarters, and program has been established for many years. With that said, he received his guidance from many different sources, not simply from a "staff sergeant" as HQ USAF/A1PA indicates. He requests that the Board not base its decision on the advisory opinion, but base its decision on what is right. He asks for the Board to provide an independent assessment on whether there was an injustice in his case. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely. 3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. In this respect, we note the evidence of record reflects the applicant was given prior approval for his dependent children to travel to Hawaii and orders were issued. Further, after their return the applicant filed a travel voucher claim which was disapproved. We are persuaded the applicant acted on the official direction and information provided. Moreover, we believe the applicant acted in good faith in this matter and there was no attempt to defraud the government. Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 21 August 2008, his two minor dependent children were authorized by competent authority to travel from Philadelphia International Airport, Pennsylvania, to Honolulu International Airport, Hawaii and from Honolulu International Airport, Hawaii to Philadelphia International Airport, Pennsylvania, and, he was authorized reimbursement in the amount of $3498.76 for his two minor dependent children’s airfare from Philadelphia International Airport, Pennsylvania, to Honolulu International Airport, Hawaii, and reimbursable expenses of $33.16 for Agent Fees, $350.00 for Airline Unaccompanied Minor Fees, $48.00 for Airport Parking, and $26.00 for Tolls. Reimbursement will not exceed the cost incurred ($3955.92). _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC- 2010-00918 in Executive Session on 14 September 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: All members voted to correct the record, as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Feb 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ USAF/A1PA, dated 7 May 10. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 10. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Jul 10.