RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00873 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive increased Basic Allowance of Housing (BAH) and per diem for the time period he was deployed. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His first set of orders dated 1 Oct 04 to 16 Feb 05, tasked him to support OPERATION NOBEL EAGLE AEF, at Andrews AFB, (AAFB) MD (113th ANG) from his ANG unit in Middletown, PA (193rd ANG). Subsequent amendments to the orders extended the duty period to 1 Jul 05. In Jul 06 he transferred as a traditional guardsman from his residence in Middletown, PA to AAFB and was told he would have to rent lodging near AAFB. On 19 Oct 06, he was tasked to support OPERATION NOBEL EAGLE at AAFB from his residence in Mannassas, VA between 23 Oct 06 and 30 Sep 07. On 17 Oct 07, he was tasked to support Homeland Defense at AAFB MD from his residence at Deale, MD between 1 Oct 07 to 31 Dec 07. He was tasked again between 1 Jan 08 to 1 Jun 08. He believes he should be provided more compensation in the form of BAH, per diem and/or separation pay because he had paid rent in the new locations though his permanent residence was elsewhere. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 19 May 88, the applicant enlisted in the Pennsylvania Air National Guard. On 22 Sep 04, he was called to Active Duty (AD), via Special Order R5-86 to support OPERATION NOBEL EAGLE from 1 Oct 04 to 16 Feb 05. Special Order R-N000003 dated 19 Oct 06, assigned him to AAFB from 23 Oct 06 to 30 Sep 07. His return address was reflected as Manassas, VA. Special Order R-N000004, dated 17 Oct 07, tasked him to support Homeland Defense from 1 Oct 07 to 31 Dec 07, at AAFB. His return address is listed as Deale, MD. Special Order A-N000026 dated 13 Dec 07 again tasked him to support Homeland Defense at AAFB from 1 Jan 08 to 1 Jun 08. His return address is listed as Deale, MD. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DFAS-IN recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. There is no discrepancy between the rates due and the rates paid for BAH for the period in question. According to the service member’s Master Military Pay Account (MMPA), he was paid BAH based on Quantico, VA zip code 20110 and Annapolis, MD zip code 20751. The complete DFAS-IN evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant submitted a response stating that he is not disputing that he did not receive the correct pay while he was in VA or MD; his only concern is regarding his permanent home residency. He never moved from Pennsylvania although his orders reflect otherwise. His supervisor stated at least two times that he needed to have a local address, so that is what he did since his responsibility was to the mission. Home commuting from Pennsylvania was not an option because he lived 150 miles away. He provides District of Columbia Air National Guard (DCANG) local commuting area guidance memorandum 65-01, which reflects locations in the local commuting area. The applicant’s complete response 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and careful consideration of the applicant's contentions, we are not persuaded that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. It appears the applicant is not challenging the pay he received while he was in MD and VA. Instead, the applicant states he never moved from Pennsylvania and due to the expenses he incurred to support the mission he is requesting per diem at $69 a day for 586 days. Although the applicant provides his W-2 Forms, Wage and Tax Statement 2006, 2007 and 2008, that show taxes were withheld from the state of PA, we do not find this evidence presented sufficient to prove that his orders were prepared in error or that he should be entitled to the requested per diem. Therefore, we conclude the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. Absent substantial evidence that he was denied rights to which he was entitled, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00873 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Mar 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, DFAS-IN, dated 5 Nov 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Nov 14.