. 

AIR  FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  96-00580 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

fiEC  3 

3 "   ,J 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

The excess charges associated with the diversion of his household 
goods  (HHG) shipment from California to Oklahoma be repealed. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
He  was provided  erroneous  information by  SSgt W---  of the Dyess 
AFB  Traffic  Management  Office  (TMO) regarding  whether  it  would 
cost him to have his HHG shipment diverted. 

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  personal 
statements  and  other  documents  associated with  the matter  under 
review. 

Applicant's  complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Information  extracted  from  the  Personnel  Data  System  (PDS) 
indicates  that  the  applicant  was  assigned  to  the  Air  Force 
He  was  credited 
Reserve  on  2  Jun  94 
with 4 years, 10 months, and 27 days of active duty service. 

in  the  grade  of  captdin. 

The  relevant  facts pertaining  to  this  application are  contained 
in  the  letter  prepared  by  the  appropriate  Air  Force  office  of 
primary  responsibility. Accordingly,  there  is no need  to  recite 
these facts in this Record of Proceedings. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Joint Personal Property Shipping Office, JPPSO, reviewed this 
application  and  recommended  denial. 
JPPSO  noted  that  the 

- 

applicant  was  released  from  active  duty  on  1  Jun  94. 
conjunction with his release from a 
travel  and  shipment  of  HHG  from 

his  home  of  rec 

-, 

In 

JPPSO  noted  that  af 
app 1 i can t t rave 1 ed  to 
the  Traffic  Managemen 
requested  the  HHG  shipme 
be  diverted  to 
by  the  carrier,  Cartwrig 

r  shipments  returning  from  Germa 

transportation  personnel  at 
te  for  diversion  to  divert  the 

shipment  when  it  arrived  at  the  New  Orleans,  Louisiana  water 
port. 
When  Cartwright  International  Van  Lines  received  the 
at the port  of New Orleans, they 
request to divert  t 
that the shipment was  scheduled  to 
advised the TMO at 
be released to them 
t of Long Beach, California.  Thus, 
red  to move 
a  corrected  certificate  of  diversion  wo 
the shipment from California to Oklahoma. 
issued a new 
ng Beach to 
certificate of diversion to move the shi 
Oklahoma.  The  shipment  arrived  in  Oklahoma  on  2 Aug  94.  The 
applicant  did  not  have  a  delivery  address  so  the  shipment  was 
placed  in  storage  in  transit. 
It  remained  in  storage  until 
1 Nov 94. 
Applicant  was  advised  that  there  would  be  excess  cost  charges 
involved because  the  shipment had  gone to California  and had  to 
be  returned to Oklahoma.  The TMO at 
AFB  also advised him 
that  since  he  was  no  longer  on  active  duty,  the  charges  would 
have  to  be  paid  prior  to  delivery  of  the  property.  When  the 
applicant protested the debt, the 
TMO contacted the Excess 
Cost  Adjudication  Function  (ECAF)  for  advice  and  assistance. 
ECAF advised Vance that it was against Air Force policy to hold a 
member's  property  for ransom after the property  had been  shipped 
to  its  destination. 
ECAF  suggested  that  they  deliver  the 
member's  property  when  requested,  and,  that  the  case  file  be 
forwarded to ECAF for review.  ECAF stated they would  review the 
case,  and  if  it  was  determined  that  the  debt  was  valid,  ECAF 
would  initiate  an  out  of  service  debt  collection  against  the 
applicant  through  the  Defense  Finance  and  Accounting  Service- 
Denver Center  (DFAS-DE) . 

2 

AFBCMR  96-00580 

After  delivery  of  the applicant's  HHG  and  payment  of  invoices, 
ECAF  reviewed  the  case  and  determined  that  the  applicant  had 
xcess  costs  for  shipment  of 
and  HHG  to 
, with  subsequent delivery  to 
Total  excess 
s  the  $969.00 
the  two  shipments  was  $3,640. 
paid.  He  was  billed  $2,671.57  in  additional  excess 
e charges.  He 
cost charges.  The applicant filed a re 
stated that when  he visited the TMO at 
he was advised 
the  shipment  could  be  diverted  at  the  port  of  entry  and  there 
would  be  no  costs  to  him. 
In  their  reply,  ECAF  stated  that 
personnel  at  Dyess AFB  had  tried  to divert  the  shipment  at  the 
port  of  entry, New  Orleans,  but  the property  did  not  come  into 
the port of New Orleans and was on its way to California when the 
carrier received  the diversion notice.  The property  arrived in 
California  and  was  delivered  to  Oklahoma  at  the  applicant's 
request.  Therefore, he was held responsible for the excess cost. 

According  to  JPPSO,  the  applicant's  HHG  and  several  other 
shipments were  scheduled to move  from 
to the west  coast 
at  the  same  time.  The  shipments  were  placed  in  1 

ntainers  for  movement  from  the  port  at 

to  the  port  at  Long  Beach. 

The  con 

ed  at  the  port  of  Norfolk,  Virginia  moved  by  rail 
(minibridge) to the delivery port at Long Beach.  When  shipments 
are moved over land via mini-bridge, they do not clear Customs at 
the  port  of  discharge  and  are  still  considered  to  be  in  the 
possession of the ocean carrier until they arrive at the port of 
delivery. 
Thus,  once  the  applicant's  HHG  shipment  departed 
Germany, there was no opportunity to divert the shipment until it 
arrived at the port of Long Beach. 

In JPPSO's  view, no error or injustice occurred in the diversion 
of  the  applicant's  HHG  shipment  from 
JPPSO indicated that transportation pe 
to divert the shipment at the port of 
applicant's  shipment  did  not  go  through  the 
SSgt  W---,  stated  that members  are  advised  t 
costs  involved  in  diverting  a  shipment  from  one  location  to 
another location.  When a HHG shipment is tended for a commercial 
carrier, the Government does not  route the  shipment  or maintain 
control it.  Routing of the shipment is the responsibility of the 
carrier  to  have  it  arrive  at  the  destination  by  the  required 
delivery  date.  Since  several  shipments  were  scheduled  to  move 
from Germany to the west coast, the carrier placed them in large 
sealand  containers  for  ocean  transportation  from  the  port  at 
ong Beach.  Thus, after the 
it  could not  be  diverted 
until it was'released by the ocean carrier at Long Beach.  At the 
applicant's  request,  the  shipment was  forwarded  from  California 
to Oklahoma.  In accordance with  paragraph  U5340,  Joint  Federal 
maximum 
Travel 
transportation obligation is the cost of one through HHG movement 
of a member's  prescribed weight allowance in one lot from and to 
authorized places  at  the  lowest overall  cost  to  the  Gouernment. 

, to the p 
departed 

Regulations 

the 

Government's 

(JFTR) , 

3 

AFBCMR  96-00580 

The  member  must  bear  all  costs  of  transportation  arising  from 
shipment  of  a  distance  in  excess  of  that  between  authorized 
places  or  special  services  requested  by  the member  incident  to 
transportation of the HHG. 
A complete copy of the JPPSO evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF A I R   FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant  indicated that when he went to 
and talked to 
t him anything 
SSgt W--- he specifically asked him if it 
to divert the shipment.  He was told that it would not, and that, 
if anything, he should get some money  back  since it was going a 
shorter distance. At  that time, he had not yet made the decision 
to  go  to  Tulsa  and  the  information  he  received  from  SSgt  W--- 
that  it  would  be  no  problem  to  divert  and  would  not  cost  him 
anything weighed heavily in his decision. 
Since  he  was  initially  advised  of  the  debt,  he  has  been making 
frequent calls and has written  a  letter to  Denver office trying 
to correct it. He did not make any payments on the debts because 
he did not  feel he owed anything. Furthermore, he was shocked to 
get a letter from a collection agency trying to collect the debt, 
with  the  addition  of  a  collection  fee  of  $1000.  Since he  had 
been  in  frequent  contact,  he  does  not  believe  the  debt  should 
have been turned over to the agency, or he should have advised of 
this.  At  the very  least, he  believes  the  $1000 collection  fee 
should be waived, and that there should be a split of the excess 
shipping cost. 

Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit D. 
In a subsequent response, the applicant indicated he has provided 
documentation which supports his contention that his HHG shipment 
could have been diverted  had the 
TMO had done what  it 
was supposed to do. 

Applicant's  complete response and additional documentary evidence 
is at Exhibit E. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.  The 
applicant's  complete  submission was  thoroughly  reviewedcand  his 

4 

AFBCMR 96-00580 

I 

his 

supporting 

assertions 

However,  we  do  not  find  the 
contentions  were  duly  noted. 
applicant's 
or 
documentation 
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the 
Air Force office of primary  responsibility  (OPR) .  Therefore, in 
the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we agree with 
the  recommendation  of  the OPR  and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the 
basis  for our decision  that the applicant has  failed to  sustain 
his burden  of establishing  that he has  suffered either an error 
or  an  injustice.  Accordingly,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  material  error  or 
injustice;  that  the  application  was  denied  without  a  personal 
appearance;  and  that  the  application  will  only  be  reconsidered 
upon  the  submission  of  newly  discovered  relevant  evidence  not 
considered with this application. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 20 Oct  98, under  the provisions  of AFI  36- 
2603: 

Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Feb 96, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Letter, JPPSO, dated 6 Jun 96. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Jul 96. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, applicant, dated 18 Jul 96. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 18 Nov 97, w/atch. 

- 

5 

AFBCMR 96-00580 

JOINT PERSONAL PROPERTY SHIPPING OFFICE - SAN ANTONIO (DOD) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

613 NORTHWEST LOOP 410,  SUITE  400 

SAN  ANTONIO  TX 

- 

1535 COMMAND DRIVE 
EE WING 3RD FLOOR 
ANDREWS AFB MD 20762-7002 

78216-5518 

MEMORANDUM FOR  AFBCMR 

FROM:  CC 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records- 

This Air Staff Advisory is submitted in reference to subject application 

1. 
(Encl 1). 

2.  Background: 

a.  The Air Force is governed in matters pertaining to the shipment of 
household goods (HHG) for its military members by Volume I, Joint Federal 
Travel Regulations (JFTR), which is promulgated from Title 37, U. S. Code. 

b.  Pursuant to Special Order AB-0774 dated 28 March 1994, as amended by 

as released from active duty 

order AB-1009 dated 23 May 1994, 
effective 1 June 1994.  In con 

authorized travel an 

to his home of record, 

-as 

application for two shipments 

unaccompanied baggage  (UB)  moved under Government Bill of Lading  (GBL) d 

from Spangda 
weight of 215 pounds 
HHG from Spangdahlem 

ma.  The shipment had a net 
also requested a shipment of 
nia . 
VP-119,872 with a net weight of 13,364 pound 
was charged a total of $969.00 for excess di 
ore 
of Abilene TX 

Loma Linda CA vice the authorized destination 

he 

ade 

c.  After arriving in'the US,-traveled 

to Tulsa OK.  On 1 June 

1994, he visited the Traffic Management Office (TMO) at Dyess AFB TX and 
requested the HHG shipment that was en route to Loma Linda CA be diverted to 
Tulsa OK.  After being advised by the carrier, Cartwright International Van 
Lines, that the normal port used for shipments returning from Germany was New 
Orleans LA, transportation personnel at Dyess AFB TX prepared a certificate 
for diversion to diver 
Orleans LA water port 

ment when it arrived at the New 

d.  In Germany, 

shipments were pla 
water port at Long Beach CA 

and several other member's 
iners for transporting to the 

When Cartwright International 

Van Lines' received the request to divert the shipment at the port of New 
Orleans, they advised the TMO at Dyess AFB TX that the shipment was scheduled 
to be released to them at the port of Long Beach CA.  Thus, a corrected 
certificate of diversion would be required to move the shipment from 
California to Oklahom 
of diversion to move the shipment from Long Beach CA to 0 

.  Dyess AFB issued a new certificate 

-The 

shipment arrived in Oklahoma on 2 August 1 9  
have a delivery address so the shipment was placed i 
(SIT).  It remained in storage until 1 November 1 9 9 4  

The TMO at-also 

advised him that since he was no 

as advised there would be excess cost charges involved 
t had gone to California and had to be returned to 

e. 
because 
Oklahoma. 
longer on active d 
the property.  Whe 
Excess Cost Adjudication Function (ECAF) for advice and assistance.  ECAF 
advised Vance that it was against Air Force policy to hold a member's property 
for ransom after the property had been shipped to destination.  ECAF suggested 
they deliver the member's property when requested and for the case file to be 
forwarded to ECAF for review.  ECAF stated they would review the case, and if 
it was determined that the debt was valid, ECAF would initiate an out of 
Service debt collection against the member through the Defense Finance and 
Accounting Service-Denve'r Center  (DFAS-DE) . 

rges would have to be paid prior to delivery of 
protested the debt, the Vance TMO contacted the 

f.  After delivery of 
pent of invoices, ECAF 
reviewed the case and det 
had incurred excess costs for 
shipment of UB  to Ardmore OK and HHG 
da CA with subsequent delivery 
to Oklahoma.  Total excess cost for the two shipments was $ 3 , 6 4 0 . 5 7   minus the 

illed $2,671.57  in additional excess cost 

filed a rebuttal of the charges.  He stated that when he 
Dyess AFB TX, he was advised the ship 

at the port of entry and there would be no costs to him 
their reply, ECAF stated that personnel at Dyess AFB TX had tried to divert 
the shipment at the port of entry, New Orleans, but the property did not come 
into the port of New Orleans and was on its way to California when the carrier 
received the diversion notice.  The property arrived in California and was 
long delivered to Oklahoma at t 
responsible for the excess cost 

; therefore, he must be held 

ted 
In 

3 .  
of his HHG shipment from California to Oklahoma be repealed based on gross 
error and misinformation. 

is requesting the excess charges associated with the diversion 

4 .   When 
AB German 
home of record, Abilene, Texas.  He made two shipments of personal property 
hipment of 
from Germany.  He requested shipment of his UB  to Ardmo 
his HHG to Loma Linda CA.  After arriving in the CONUS, 
decided to 

separated from active duty, he was assigned to Spangdahlem 
authorized travel and shipment of HHG from Germany to his 

reside in Tulsa OK.  He visited to transportation office at Dyess AFB TX and 
requested that his HHG shipment be diverted from California to Oklahoma. 
Transportation personnel at Dyess checked with the carrier to determine which 
water port they used on shipments from Germany.  They were advised that the 
normal port of entry was New Orleans LA.  A diversion certificate was prepared 
and sent to the home office of the carrier to divert the shipment to Oklahoma 
when it arrived at the port of New Orleans. 

-HHG 

and several other shipments of DOD sponsored HHG shipments 

5. 
were scheduled to move from Germany to the west codst at the same time.  The 
shipments were placed in large sealand type containers for movement from the 
port at Bremerhaven, Germany, to the port at Long Beach CA.  The containers 
were discharged at the port of Norfolk VA and moved by rail (mini-bridge) to 
When shipments are 
the delivery port at Long Beach CA 
moved over land via mini-bridge, they do not clear Customs at the port of 
discharge and are still considered to be in the possession of 
carrier until they arrive at the port of delivery.  Thus, once 
shipment departed Germany, there was no opportunity to divert the shipment 
until it arrived at the port of Long Beach CA. 

HHG 

6.  In view of the above, recommend denial of the member’s request to expunge 
the indebtedness associated with the diversion of his HHG from California to 
Oklahoma. 
was authorized to ship his HHG from Germany to Abilene 
TX.  At his request, the HHG were shipped to Loma Linda CA.  He states that 
while in Germany, he accepted a medical residency program in Loma Linda CA and 
shipped the HHG there because he was fairly confident he would be working in 
Loma Linda.  However, after returning to the CONUS and visiting with family 
and friends in Oklahoma, he decided to enter a residency program in Tulsa OK. 

to-. 

7 .   No error or injustice occurred in the d 
Tran 
shipment from 
tried to divert the shipment at the port of 
shipment did not go through the New Orleans port. 
members are advised that there may be excess costs 
shipment from one location to another location.  When a HHG shipment is tended 
to a commercial carrier, the Government does not route the shipment or 
maintain control over it.  Routing of the shipment is the responsibility of 
the carrier to have it arrive at destination by the required delivery date. 
Since several shipments were scheduled to move from Germany to the west coast, 
the carrier placed them in large Sealand containers for ocean transportation 

remerhaven Germany to the port at Long Beach CA.  Thus, 
shipment departed Germany, it could no 
e ocean carrier at Long Beach CA.  At 

d until it 
request, 

the shipment was forwarded from California to Oklahoma.  In accordance with 
JFTR, the Government’s maximum transportation obligation is 
paragraph -, 
the cost of one through HHG movement of a member‘s prescribed weight allowance 
in one lot from and to authorized places at the lowest overall cost to the 
Government.  The member must bear all costs of transportation arising from 
shipment of a distance in excess of that between authorized places or special 
services requested by the member incident to transportation of the HHG. 

8.  Should the Board decide to grant the relief sought, the records may be 
changed to state that the 
entitlements under Special Order 
23 May 94 was $15, 

'dated 28 Mar 94 as amended by e 

hold goods shipping 

-dated 

9.  My point of contact  is 
regarding this matter, he 

If there are any questions 

954-4227. 

SIGNED 

DAVID F. POSTELL,  Colonel, USAF 
Commander