MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            24 April 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002082281

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Terry L. Placek		Member	
	Mr. Robert Duecaster		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reimbursement of $1,692.32 that he was charged for exceeding his household goods (HHG) weight allowance.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the HHG weight allowance for a career enlisted soldier serving in the rank of sergeant major (SGM) is unjustly low when compared to that of a junior grade officer.  He further states that the average time to attain the rank of SGM is twenty years and the average time to attain the rank of captain is 8 years, yet the HHG weight allowance is the same (14,500 pounds).  He further states that he believes that the HHG weight allowance should not be based on rank, but rather the size of the family and rank.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted on 28 August 1978 for a period of 4 years and has remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-8 on 1 January 1995.

He departed Germany in June 1999 to attend the Sergeant's Major Academy at Fort Bliss, Texas beginning 22 July 1999.  He was promoted to the rank of SGM on 1 February 2000.  He completed the course on 25 May 2000 and was transferred to Fort Detrick, Maryland.

On 13 February 2002, he was notified that his HHG shipment to Fort Detrick was 2,258 pounds overweight and that he was indebted to the government in the amount of $1,692.32.  His authorized weight allowance was 14,500 pounds and he shipped 16,758 pounds.

In June 2002, the applicant submitted a request to have his debt remitted or cancelled.  His request was disapproved by the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) on 27 September 2002 and he was advised that he could apply to this Board.

The Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR), Volume II, provides a list by pay grade of HHG entitlements for service members with and without dependents.  It provides, in pertinent part, that enlisted soldiers serving in the pay grade of E-8, with dependents, are authorized to ship a maximum of 13,500 pounds of HHG.  Soldiers serving in the pay grade of E-9 are authorized to ship 14,500 pounds.  Warrant Officers serving in the pay grade of W-3 are authorized to ship 14,500 pounds of HHG as are commissioned officers serving in the rank and pay grade of captain 0-3.  

Army Regulation 55-71 serves as the authority for the transportation of personal property.  It provides, in pertinent part, that the owner (military member) is responsible for ensuring that weight allowances are observed (the total weight of HHG shipped plus the weight of HHG in storage does not exceed the authorized weight allowance).  Transportation offices will not refuse movement of shipments that are overweight; however, service members will be billed for all costs of handling and shipping HHG in excess of the weight allowance authorized in the JFTR.

Army Regulation 600-4 serves as the authority for the remission or cancellation of indebtedness for enlisted members.  It states, in pertinent part, that the objective of remission or cancellation is to remit or cancel debts that are considered to be unjust and that indebtedness may not be cancelled or remitted when the funds obtained were converted to own use through fraud, larceny, embezzlement, or other unlawful means.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  While the applicant has provided the document which shows the calculations used to determine the extent of his debt, he has not provided any evidence to show that he was not overweight or that his HHG shipment weight and debt were not calculated properly by DFAS officials.  

3.  The Board has noted the applicant's contention that he is not afforded a sufficient weight allowance for a person of his rank, years of service and family size and finds his argument to be without merit.  Had the weight allowances been changed (lowered) after he made his move, the applicant would have a valid argument.  However, he was aware beforehand what his entitlements were and it was his responsibility to ensure he either remained within his authorized allowance or was willing to pay for the excess weight.

4.  Although the Board cannot determine at what point he accumulated the excess weight, it is noted that during the 10 months he was at Fort Bliss, his allowance increased by 1,000 pounds when he was promoted to the rank of SGM. 

5.  While the applicant may believe that the maximum allowances are too low, they are the current standards by which all services are held to and until such time as they are changed, the applicant is bound to comply with those standards, as are the many soldiers who have even larger families than the applicant. 

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___tlp___  _rvo ____  ___rld___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002082281	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/04/24	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  293	128.100/CAN DEBT	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.