RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03952 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1.  His mobility orders in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, for the period 2 Jan 13 through 28 Aug 13, be extended to 30 Sep 13 to cover his additional time spent in theater and the time he was being evaluated for a medical issue incurred while on active duty (AD). 2.  His leave that was sold back in error be restored and corrected as “leave taken.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Two command man-day allocation system (CMAS) requests by his home unit to extend his mobility orders for his delay in rotation out of theater, and to cover additional time for medical analysis of his injury incurred while in Afghanistan were not processed by AFRC. A line of duty (LOD) determination was filed with his medical squadron, and the requirement for treatment was vetted through his Higher Headquarters (HHQ) and staff judge advocate (SJA). Additionally, AFRC’s failure to properly process his leave form with this set of orders resulted in a substantial debt. He never agreed to sell back his leave; he opted for taking the leave. Due to the severe implications of the loss of pay and the impending financial burden, he opted to return to work early without properly pursuing medical treatment. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: During the matter in question, the applicant was serving in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of major (O-4). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D and G. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice with respect to the applicant’s request to extend his mobilization orders. Based on the documentation provided, it appeared the applicant’s unit was not aware of the appropriate authority levels and procedures associated with mobility order extensions. Mobilization orders are not extended for the purpose of determining eligibility for medical continuation (MEDCON) orders. Records revealed that a CMAS request was submitted on 28 Aug 13 and declined by AFPC/DPFA on 26 Sep 13, stating, “please resubmit with completed initial application; no documentation was received with this request.” The CMAS request was resubmitted and disapproved on 1 Oct 13, lacking proof that the applicant met eligibility and status changes. A1K states that HQ AFRC is not in the MEDCON orders approval process. Pre-MEDCON MPA days are requested by the applicant’s unit, validated by AFPC/DPFA, and approved by AF/A1MP. On 2 Oct 13, the applicant’s unit requested and received detailed information pertaining to the disapproval. The unit was informed that since the applicant was off orders and a break-in service occurred, the LOD must be completed and the applicant must be recommended for medical continuation by the medics prior to submitting a MEDCON order request. A complete copy of the ARPC/A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPFA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice with respect to the applicant’s request to extend his mobilization orders based on a medical injury incurred in the line of duty. Per the Aug 12 SAF MEDCON Policy Guidelines, “MEDCON eligibility requires a Line of Duty (LOD) determination and a finding by a credentialed military health care provider highlighting that the service member (SM) has an unresolved health condition requiring treatment.” In this case, the applicant has not submitted documentation or evidence reflecting a medical status as mobility restricted or unable to meet retention standards. There is also a lack of credible material that showed he was on a current medical treatment plan that leads to a resolution of the documented medical condition, therefore, he is ineligible for MEDCON. The applicant can receive continued medical care utilizing the LOD determination, Transitional Assistance Management Program (TAMP), or Tricare Reserve Select (TRS) as applicable. As an alternative, IAW DoDD 1241.01, Reserve Component Medical Care and Incapacitation Pay for Line of Duty Conditions, and DoDI 1241.2, Reserve Component Incapacitation System Management, he may be eligible for incapacitation pay (INCAP), administered by the Air Reserve Component (ARC) and addressed in the SAF MEDCON policy guidelines. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFA evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPRs and argues their analysis of his case was incomplete. In support of his response, he contends he did submit the following documentation with his original package; AFRC IMT 348, Informal Line Of Duty Determination, reflecting his injury occurred while deployed, and copies of emails and memos between AFRC staff, his unit, unit commander, and himself, which should suffice for “credible material” as to his ongoing treatment (docs attached to rebuttal as well). He contends that AFRC/A1K’s statement, “mobilization orders aren’t extended for the purpose of determining eligibility for MEDCON orders,” directly contradicts AFRC staff instruction/guidance. He continues this argument stating that confusion on how to proceed in the remedy of his situation was at every level. He opines that regarding the matter in question, he did everything he was asked to do, and that an inability to acquire clear instruction/answers has resulted in the requirement for this Board request. A complete copy of the applicant’s response is at Exhibit F. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/FM recommends granting relief, indicating sufficient evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice with respect to the applicant’s request for his leave that was sold back in error, to be restored. Pay records revealed that in Oct 13 the applicant’s Reserve Pay Office (RPO) changed from Dobbins AFB to March AFB. With this occurring around the same time as the transaction being posted, it is not possible to determine which office processed the transactions and sold back the leave. He accrued 20 days of leave for his tour of duty under Reserve Order No. A5BBJ7. He took 14 days of this leave (15 Aug 13 – 28 Aug 13), and the six days left of the 20 days leave accrued on the order was sold back on Leave Earning Statement (LES) dated 13 Jun 14 for $1,441.74. No supporting documentation was found indicating the applicant requested the six days of leave be sold back. According to documents submitted by AFRC/FM: On 30 Oct 12, Reserve Orders were approved ordering the applicant to active duty in accordance with Title 10 U.S.C. 12302 involuntary partial mobilization in support of OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, for the period 2 Jan 13 to 28 Aug 13. On 2 Jan 13, the applicant departed his home of record (HOR) enroute to the OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM area of responsibility (AOR). On 7 Aug 13, the applicant departed the AOR and arrived at his HOR on 14 Aug 13. On 15 Aug 13, the applicant started 14 days of leave ending on 28 Aug 13. Notwithstanding the above, during their review of the applicant’s pay records they discovered that the transaction (TIN A90) for Combat Zone Tax Relief (CZTE) was only processed for the months of January, February, and March 2013 for the mobilization orders in question. If the applicant was in a CZTE location for the duration of his tour of duty associated with this order, he is authorized CZTE for each month through August 2013. DFAS can process the transactions for CZTE for April through August 2013. A complete copy of the AFRC/FM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 Oct 15, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit H). 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 with respect to the applicant’s request for his mobility orders to be extended to cover additional time spent in theater and the time he was being evaluated for a medical issue incurred while on active duty. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case, to include his rebuttal; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of ARPC/A1K and AFPC/DPFA, and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice warranting extending his mobilization orders to 30 Sep 13. While we note it appeared that the applicant’s unit was not aware of the appropriate authority levels and procedures associated with mobility order extensions, according to ARPC/A1K, his unit did request and receive detailed information pertaining to orders extensions; however, the documentation the unit submitted lacked proof that the applicant met required eligibility and status changes. Additionally, AFPC/DPFA indicated, there was a lack of credible documentation reflecting a medical status as mobility restricted or unable to meet retention standards in accordance with SAF MEDCON Policy Guidelines, dated August 2012. The Board notes that during a review of the applicant’s pay records, AFRC/FM discovered the transaction (TIN A90) for Combat Zone Tax Relief (CZTE) was only processed for the months of January through March 2013, however, because the applicant was in a CZTE location for the duration of this tour of duty, he is authorized CZTE for each month through August 2013. We agree the applicant should receive the authorized CZTE for each month of his tour of duty. However, subsequent to a thorough review of the evidence of record, we find the AFRC/FM recommended correction that the pay office establish a CMS case in order for Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to process the transaction associated with the applicant’s tour of duty in a CZTE requires the advice of appropriate DFAS officials who are charged with processing CZTE actions. Accordingly, DoD 7000.14-R, Financial Management Regulation (FMR), Volume 7A, Chapter 44, provides information on an available avenue of administrative relief. Therefore, we advise the applicant seek the advice of the appropriate DFAS officials who are charged with processing CZTE actions and formally apply for processing of the transaction for tax relief for the period April through August 2013 under a separate application. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the portion of the requested relief sought in respect to mobility orders extension in this application. 4.  Notwithstanding our determination above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice regarding the applicant’s six (6) days of leave that were sold back. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of this aspect of the case and agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFRC/FM and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has been the victim of an error. The Board notes there was no supporting documentation stating the applicant requested six of the twenty days of leave accrued for his tour of duty associated with Reserve Order No. A5BBJ7, be sold back. However, merely restoring the leave is not what the applicant requested, and may put the applicant in a worse position by generating a debt for the sold leave. The applicant requested his orders be extended and the six days be “leave taken.” The record indicates he did not return to his civilian job until 1 Oct 13. As such, we recommend the applicant's records be corrected as indicated below. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that he did not sell six of the twenty days of leave accrued for his tour of duty associated with Reserve Order No. A5BBJ7 and his orders did not end on 28 August 2013, but he continued on active duty, in an ordinary leave status, through 3 September 2013. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03952 in Executive Session on 12 Jan 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03952 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Sep 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFRC/A1K, dated 6 Nov 14. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFA, dated 2 Mar 15. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Apr 15. Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Apr 15, w/atchs. Exhibit G.  Memorandum, AFRC/FM, dated 21 Oct 15, w/atchs. Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Oct 15.