AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00610  t-tkil  51999 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

The  additional  "Excess  Cost" of  $334.11  she  was  assessed  for 
shipping her  Household  Goods  (HHG) to Wichita,  KS,  vice  Kansas 
City, MO, be eliminated. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT : 
Had  she  been  initially  given  the  correct  cost,  she  may  have 
decided not to ship all of the property. 

In  support  of  her  request,  the  applicant  submits  a  personal 
statement and a letter from the Excess Cost Adjudication Function 
(DFAS-DE/FYDCI) (Exhibit A) . 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from 
the  applicant's  military  records,  are  contained  in  the  letter 
prepared  by  the  appropriate  office  of  the  Air  Force. 
Accordingly,  there  is  no  need  to  recite  these  facts  in  this 
Record of Proceedings. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Joint Personal Property Shipping Office -  San Antonio  (DoD) 
JPPSO-DIR,  stated  that  the  applicant  was  released  from  active 
duty, effective 30 September 1996.  She was authorized travel and 
transportation entitlements to either her  home  of record  (HOR), 
St.  Louis,  MO,  or  the  place  of  entry  on  active  duty  (PEAD) , 
Kansas City, MO.  A shipment of Household Goods  (HHG) moved  from 
Belleville,  IL,  to  Wichita,  KS. 
The  shipment  was  placed  in 
storage-in-transit  (SIT) at  origin  for  8  days.  The  applicant 
elected  to  ship  her  property  to  an  alternate  destination, 
Wichita,  KS,  vice  the  authorized  destination,  Kansas  City,  MO. 
The origin Traffic Management Office, Scott AFB, IL, charged her 
$336.84  for  shipping  to  a  higher  cost  destination.  Since  the 

applicant  was  no  longer  in  a  pay  status,  a  Cash  Collection 
Voucher  was  issued  to  collect  the  charges  prior  to  shipment. 
When  all  transportation  vouchers  had  been  paid  by  the  Defense 
Finance  & 
Accounting  Service,  Indianapolis  (DFAS-IN),  the 
documentation  was  provided  to  the  Excess  Cost  Adjudication 
Function  (ECAF) for  their  review.  ECAF  determined  the  excess 
cost  charges  had  been  incorrectly  computed  by  the  origin 
transportation  office  and  the  applicant  owed  an  additional 
$334.11.  She had been assessed $336.84 vice the correct charges 
of $670.95. 
JPPSO-DIR stated that while  it is regrettable the applicant was 
initially  given  incorrect  figures  regarding  the  cost  of  her 
shipment, the incorrect information did not  increase the excess 
cost, or cause her to pay more  than what  she should have paid. 
Her  statement  that  she  could  have  removed  an  amount  of  weight 
from the load which might have reduced the excess cost to zero is 
without  merit.  When  HHG  are  packed,  loaded  on  the  van,  and 
drayaged to the scale for weighing, charges have occurred at that 
point.  Additionally, the excess cost charges are not due to the 
member exceeding her weight  entitlements.  The charges occurred 
because it cost more to ship HHG to the alternate point than to 
the  authorized  destination. 
Therefore,  regardless  of  the 
shipment weight,  the applicant would have  still incurred excess 
cost charges to ship the property to the alternate destination. 

JPPSO-DTR recommended denial of the applicant's  request to avoid 
paying the additional charges due for the shipment of her HHG to 
an  alternate point.  At  her  request, her  HHGs  were  shipped to 
Wichita,  KS,  in  lieu  of  the  authorized  destination  of  Kansas 
City, MO.  Based  on the  amount  of HHG  involved,  it  would  have 
cost  $10,682.21  to  ship the HHG  to the  authorized  destination. 
The Government paid  $11,353.16 to ship the HHG to the alternate 
destination.  In accordance with paragraph U5340-C, Joint Federal 
Travel  Regulation  (JFTR), the  applicant  is  responsible for  the 
cost difference. 
A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C .  

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  applicant  reviewed the  advisory  opinion  and  indicated  that 
she is aware that  she incurred excess costs to ship her  HHG to 
the  alternate  destination  of  Wichita,  KS. 
It  was  her 
understanding, however, that her payment  of  $334.11 represented 
the  correct  calculation  of  excess  costs  due. 
She  was 
flabbergasted  to  receive  notification  13 months  later  that  an 
additional $336.84 was owed due to a calculation error beyond her 
control or knowledge.  She fully believed that she had paid her 
obligation on 31 October 1996.  She is now being held accountable 
for an additional $336.84.  From her perspective, her excess cost 
has in fact more than doubled.  She was denied the opportunity to 

2 

98-00610 

reduce  or  eliminate  excess  costs. 
response is appended at Exhibit E. 

A  complete  copy  of  this 

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.  We 
took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits  of  the  case;  however,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and 
recommendation  of  JPPSO-DIR  and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the 
basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the 
victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.  Therefore, absent  sufficient 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  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 3 November 1998, under the provisions of 
A F I  
3 6 - 2 6 0 3 :  

Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair 
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member 
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Feb 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, JPPSO-DIR, dated 20 May 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 98. 
Exhibit E.  Letter from applicant, dated 6 Jul 98. 

Panel Chair 

V 

3 

98-00610