RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02500 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive the necessary documentation for approval of the personally procured move (PPM) of his household goods (HHG) during a permanent change of station (PCS) move. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. His PPM voucher was recently disapproved by local and regional transportation management office (TMO) officials on the basis that he transported his HHG before he received orders, and he did not first obtain a letter-in-lieu of orders authorizing the movement of HHG prior to issuance of orders. However, he believes the PPM should be reimbursed for three primary reasons: a. HHG transportation before a PCS order is issued and is inherently authorized in the Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) as long as the government does not incur any additional cost. b. He did not receive accurate or effective counseling about specific JFTR and associated Air Force supplement requirements from either his losing TMO or military personnel flight (MPF) prior to moving his HHG. c. His PPM was executed in accordance with the intent of JFTR regulations. 2. He received initial assignment notification on 1 November 2011, informing him of his selection for a PCS to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to attend Intermediate Developmental Education (IDE). As directed in his initial notification message, he accomplished the assignment briefing and signed the Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) associated with IDE. On 18 November 2011, he received a change RIP, placing him in the winter IDE class at Fort Leavenworth with a report not later than date (RNLTD) of 4 January 2013. As a result of his reassignment to the winter class, he elected to move his family to their home of record in Colorado during the summer of 2012 to avoid sending his children to three different schools in two years. Prior to moving his family and HHG via PPM, he visited both the TMO and the MPF outbound assignments section in early June 2012. He made inquiries to both agencies regarding moving his family and HHG prior to his official PCS order date. The TMO officials simply told him to save his receipts, and did not reference the JFTR or direct him to the JFTR and the associated supplements to identify specific regulations for movement of HHG prior to receipt of orders. The MPF officials told him they would look into it but never got back to him. 3. However, he had no personal reservations about moving his family and HHG prior to receiving orders because of the multiple official sources advising him of his impending issuance of orders and the practical knowledge that as an IDE-select assigned to the winter class there was no realistic alternative for an assignment change prior to his RNLTD to Fort Leavenworth. Consequently, he moved his dependents and all of his HHG to Aurora, Colorado during a one-month span, from 27 June to 26 July 2012. Following the move, he remained at Nellis AFB, received final orders for his PCS to Fort Leavenworth on 18 October 2012, departed Nellis AFB on 7 December 2012, and arrived at Fort Leavenworth on 4 January 2013. He did not move any HHG from Nellis to Fort Leavenworth. 4. After he arrived at Fort Leavenworth, the Whiteman AFB TMO and the Colorado Springs regional TMO disapproved his PPM voucher on the basis that he moved his HHG prior to the issuance of orders. TMO directed him to contact his outbound MPF to coordinate for an after-the-fact letter-in-lieu of orders to authorize his movement of HHG prior to issuance of orders. During his subsequent coordination with outbound MPF was the first time a TMO or MPF official informed him that movement of HHG prior to receiving orders was covered by the JFTR. The MPF provided amendments to his orders reflecting his dependents' original address in Las Vegas instead of the new Colorado address and the timeframe that he conducted the move. Unfortunately, because authorization for movement of HHG prior to receiving orders is specifically a JFTR authority, the amendments failed to provide adequate documentation and his voucher was again disapproved. 5. His family’s relocation to their home of record in Colorado was in accordance with paragraph U5218 of the JFTR. The multiple official advisements of his upcoming assignment, including RIPs, assignment briefing, and ADSC agreement, seemed to meet the intent of paragraphs U5201C and U5330-G1A. Unfortunately, he was not advised of the requirement for a letter-in-lieu of orders identified in the AF supplement to the JFTR on his initial visit to the Nellis TMO. He would have gladly coordinated for a letter-in-lieu of orders and signed the written agreements before moving his HHG if he was notified of the requirement, or simply directed to the JFTR and the AF supplement to research the requirements himself when he made his initial visits to TMO and the MPF. He recently requested Nellis TMO provide him with documentation validating his visit to their office in June 2012, assuming they could verify his visit using their sign-in logs. Unfortunately, Nellis TMO only maintains historic sign-in logs for 60 days, and was unable to fulfil his request. 6. He understands that it is his obligation as an officer to know and comply with the AFIs and regulations, but he relied on the experts in the respective supporting agencies to point him in the right direction so he could do the required research. Ultimately, the JFTR clearly intends to provide military members with the flexibility to do what is best for their families as long as the government does not incur any additional cost. He feels that his case is directly in line with the intent of the JFTR regulations. The cost of his PPM to transport his HHG to Colorado is less than the government would have paid to move his HHG to Fort Leavenworth. This PPM claim is his only HHG transportation claim for this PCS. In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, and copies of his AF Form 899, Request and Authorization for Permanent Change of Station – Military, and support documents pertaining to the PPM of his HHG. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of Major, O-4. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. PPA/ECAF recommends denial. ECAF states the applicant indicates he should be reimbursed for three primary reasons, however, the applicant has provided no documentation substantiating inaccurate/ineffective counseling from the TMO and MPF. Per Special Order AG-007119, dated 18 October 2012, the applicant was reassigned on a PCS from Nellis AFB Nevada, to Ft Leavenworth, Kansas, with a report not later than date of 4 January 2013. He initially received notification of permanent change of station on 1 November 2011, reassigning him to Ft Leavenworth, Kansas, reporting not later than 22 June 2012. A change was issued on 18 November 2011, reflecting a report not later than of 4 January 2013. The applicant states he chose to relocate his dependents and HHG to Aurora, Colorado, versus Ft Leavenworth, Kansas, and in Jun-Jul 2012, he performed a PPM of his HHG to Aurora Colorado. Upon arriving at his PCS location and attempting to receive payment for the PPM, he was advised there was no authorization for payment, as the PPM occurred prior to the issuance of his PCS order. 2. Although HHG entitlements are inherently authorized in the JFTR, the orders establishes the conditions for official travel and transportation at government expense, and provides the basis for transportation payment/reimbursement, and is required to be issued before travel/transportation is performed. JFTR, para U5330-G.l, allows transportation of HHG before the issuance of orders if supported by: a statement from the PCS AO or designated representative that the member was advised before such an order was issued that it would be issued; applicant signed a written agreement to pay additional costs incurred for transportation to another point if the new PDS named in the order is different than initially reflected; and written agreement to pay the entire transportation cost if an order is not later issued to authorize the transportation. The complete PPA/ECAF evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He does not believe that the PPA/ECAF recommendation to deny his petition is justified. ECAF recommends denial of his petition because he did not coordinate for his PPM before issuance of orders, and because he did not provide any documentation substantiating deficient counseling from TMO and MPF. However, he did attempt to coordinate with TMO before conducting his PPM. He received deficient counseling when the TMO agent failed to reference the JFTR or direct him to the JFTR, which would have informed him to obtain the necessary documentation. Furthermore, he attempted to acquire a record of his visit to TMO to substantiate his claim that he solicited counseling before conducting the PPM. However, the Nellis TMO does not maintain historical records beyond 60 days. He humbly requests the Board approve his petition. He has been a dedicated servant of the Air Force for over 13 years. His PCS from Nellis entitled a household move. However, his family needs required him to conduct a PPM before receiving final orders. He attempted to coordinate with TMO before initiating the PPM, and did not receive effective counseling. He did not file any additional household moving claims for his PCS from Nellis. If his request is denied, he will not be reimbursed for the PPM, which will result in his personally funding the movement of his household goods, which is a standard PCS entitlement. He requests that the Board consider these factors as his case is reviewed. He also requests he be notified, in advance, of the intent to deny his petition so he may be present when the decision is rendered. 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 filed. 3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice that would warrant relief in this case. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; and note the Air Force office of primary responsibility recommends denial; however, household goods (HHG) transportation entitlements are inherently authorized in the Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) (JFTR). In this respect, we believe the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to find it reasonable that he would have procured a statement from the permanent change of station (PCS) authorizing official or completed a letter-in-lieu of orders and signed the written agreements before moving his HHG. Accordingly, we believe that he should receive payment for his PPM, with costs not to exceed authorized PCS allowances. Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected as 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 his AF Form 899, Request and Authorization for Permanent Change of Station – Military, Special Order AG-007119, dated 18 October 2012, be amended in Block 28, “Date” to reflect 31 May 2012 rather than 18 October 2012. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 18 February 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02500 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 May 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, PPA/ECAF, dated 31 July 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 August 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 30 August 2013.