RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2022-01226

XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: NO
 
APPLICANT’S REQUEST

Eight (8) days added to deployment orders to account for leave and downtime. 

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

From 11 Oct 20 to 11 Apr 21, the applicant completed a 182-day deployment in support of Operation Freedom Sentinel.  However, the Unit Deployment Manager (UDM) did not obligate eight (8) additional days in the M4S system to account for authorized leave and downtime after the deployment.  The missing eight (8) days on the applicant’s deployment orders account for $1,283.63 of missed pay.  The applicant is submitting the request because the error was discovered outside of the one-year window to allocate deployment days. 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is an Air Force staff sergeant (E-5).  

According to Order # XXXXXX, dated 21 Apr 21, provided by the applicant, the order modification is to delete a previously amended order that changed the inclusive dates of the deployment from 11 Oct 20 to 11 Apr 21 to reflect 11 Oct 20 to 19 Apr 21; and return the inclusive dates to reflect 11 Oct 20 to 11 Apr 21.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

AFI 36-2619, Active Duty Operational Support (ADOS) – Active Component (AC) Man-Day Program; paragraph 2.2 notes redeployment in-processing time is limited to 2 days if the member is not authorized reconstruction downtime or if authorized reconstitution downtime.  Otherwise, re-deployment in-processing will be accomplished during the downtime.  Downtime is dependent on the length of tour, and no more than 14 days.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

NGB/A1XR recommends denying the application.  Based on the documentation provided by the applicant and analysis of the facts, there no evidence of an error or injustice because the applicant is only authorized downtime and leave when returning from a deployment.  The applicant completed a 182-day deployment and is requesting an additional 8 days to account for additional leave and down time.  On 11 Oct 20, the applicant started his pre-deployment training.  On 26 Oct 20 he departed for the deployment, and on 13 Mar 21 returned home.  On 14 Mar 21, the applicant would have in-processed on his date of return and started his downtime.  On 11 Apr 21, the applicant’s orders ended after taking 29 days of downtime and leave.  However, on 6 Mar 21, the applicant’s unit submitted an extension in M4S to return him from his deployment and give him 14 days of in-processing, 14 days of downtime and 16 days of leave.  The M4S extension request was denied by Headquarters Air Force because guardsmen are not authorized in-processing time if they earn downtime.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 24 Jun 22 for comment (Exhibit D) but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of NGB/A1XR that the applicant was only authorized downtime and leave upon return from a deployment and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2022-01226 in Executive Session on 9 Aug 22:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 27 Apr 22.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, NGB/A1XR, w/atchs, dated 22 Jun 22.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 24 Jun 22.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.