RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00833 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Home of Record (HOR) be changed to Panama. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was born and raised in Panama. Her initial recruiting process started in Panama. She was not properly advised of its meaning. She would like to have the opportunity to return to Panama. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 23 Feb 96, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force and is currently serving on active duty. According to her DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States, dated 23 Feb 96, her HOR is Naples, FL and Place of Enlistment (POE) is Miami, FL. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIPE recommends denial. There appears to not be an error or injustice justifying a change of her HOR. The DD Form 4 is the source document for HOR and POE. The Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR), Volume 1, Appendix A1, part 1, states the place recorded as the home of the individual when reinstated, reappointed or reenlisted remains the same as that recorded when commissioned, appointed, enlisted or inducted, or ordered into the tour of active duty unless there is a break in service of more than one full day. Only if a break in service exceeds one full day may the member change the HOR. The HOR is the location identified by the individual upon entering the service, not a location where the individual is later assigned or a location selected for convenience. A correction must be fully justified. Domicile or legal residence may change but the HOR will not. The AFPC Enlisted Accessions Branch confirmed the applicant initialed the DD Form 4/1 dated 23 Feb 96 which lists Naples, FL as her HOR. A complete copy of the DPSIPE 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 8 May 14 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 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-2014-00833 in Executive Session on 20 Jan 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00833 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Jun 11[sic], w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIPE, dated 18 Mar 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 May 14.