RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01893
            INDEX CODE:  128.14

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The excess cost charges for the shipment of his household goods  (HHG)
be eliminated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The bill for the extra cost for shipment of his HHG is unjust  due  to
the way the Transportation Management Office (TMO)  inspector  handled
his move and the length of  time  it  took  the  Defense  Finance  and
Accounting Service (DFAS-DE) to notify him of the charges.

The garnishment of his pay has created a financial hardship.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal  statement
and documentation pertaining to the shipment of his HHG.   Applicant’s
complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant retired from active duty, effective 1  Nov  96,  in
the grade of technical sergeant.  He was credited with 20 years and  4
days of active duty service.

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-SAT/DIR,  reviewed
this  application  and  recommended  denial.   JPPSO  noted  that  the
applicant made two shipments of personal property in conjunction  with
his retirement.  A shipment of HHG moved from Royal  Air  Force  (RAF)
Lakenheath, United  Kingdom  (UK),  to  Altus,  Oklahoma  (OK),  under
Government Bill of Lading  (GBL)  VP-007,010.   The  shipment  had  an
origin net weight of  16,345  pounds.   A  shipment  of  unaccompanied
baggage (UB) with a net weight of 700 pounds  moved  from  England  to
Altus under GBL VP-007,112.

The applicant was billed $4,384.49 for exceeding his authorized weight
allowance of 11,000 pounds.   He  filed  a  rebuttal  of  the  charges
stating he felt the shipping company had deliberately  overpacked  his
shipment in order to receive more money from  the  government  at  his
expense.  He stated he had pre-packed a lot of his goods  and  weighed
them, and he had obtained a weight of only 9,600 pounds.  He stated he
advised the inspector at origin that the packers were over packing the
shipment and the inspector advised him not to  worry  because  if  the
shipment was overweight, it would be  reweighed  at  destination.   At
destination, he stated he asked about the reweigh and  was  unable  to
obtain any information on it.

According to JPPSO,  the  Excess  Cost  Adjudication  Function  (ECAF)
reviewed the case and  determined  the  applicant  did  ship  personal
property in excess of the prescribed weight allowance.   They  advised
the applicant that his questions about the validity  of  the  shipment
weight was noted; however, the shipment was  weighed  twice  and  both
weights were obtained on certified scales, signed  by  official  weigh
masters, and  there  was  no  evidence  indicating  the  weights  were
improperly obtained.  Using the cube rule, they credited the applicant
with additional professional  books,  papers,  and  equipment  (PBP&E)
which reduced the indebtedness to $3,518.92 vice $4,384.49.

JPPSO indicated that upon departure from RAF Lakenheath, the applicant
was authorized a weight  allowance  of  11,000  pounds.   He  incurred
excess cost charges by effecting two shipments  of  personal  property
with a combined net weight of 17,045 pounds.  The HHG shipment arrived
at destination on 4 Oct 96 and was placed in storage-in-transit (SIT).
 When it was delivered from storage  on  18  Oct  96,  a  reweigh  was
performed which produced a higher net weight of 16,370 pounds vice the
origin net weight of 16,345 pounds.   The  destination  office  stated
that the reweigh information has been available in their office  since
the delivery.

Regarding the applicant’s statements about the packing and  weight  of
his shipment, Appendix A, item 20, DOD 4500.34R, states that  the  net
weight for all codes of service will  consist  of  the  actual  goods,
including PBP&E, and  the  necessary  wrapping,  packing,  and  filler
material  incident  thereto.   In  determining  the  net  weight   for
containerized shipments, the difference between the tare weight of the
empty container and the gross weight of the packed container  will  be
the net weight the carrier may bill for.   This  net  weight  is  then
reduced by 10 percent to determine the net chargeable  weight.   Thus,
the number of containers had no bearing on the applicant’s net weight.

Concerning the applicant’s statement about the length of time it  took
to notify him of the debt and garnishment of his retired  pay  without
notice,  JPPSO  stated  that  notification  of   and   collection   of
indebtedness for retired members is a function of DFAS-DE.  The system
relies on expediency of the carrier to submit invoices for payment and
a computer system to generate the necessary documents  for  review  by
ECAF.  Nevertheless, the delay in notification of  the  debt  did  not
increase the shipment weight or the cost to the applicant.

According to JPPSO, the applicant did not provide any  information  to
support  an  error  or  injustice  by  transportation  personnel  that
increased the weight of his HHG.  At origin, the shipment  had  a  net
weight of 16,370 pounds.  Both  weights  were  obtained  on  certified
scales and signed by official weigh masters.  The lower origin  weight
was used in  the  excess  cost  computations.   Although  the  use  of
constructive weights is prohibited when scale weights are  known,  the
Comptroller General has determined that when the weight of a  shipment
is unobtainable, constructive weights may be used by applying the  HHG
industry  average  of  40  pounds  per  inventory  line   item.    The
applicant’s shipment contained  470  inventory  items.   Applying  the
construction method would produce a shipment weight of  18,800  pounds
(470 times 40).  This tends to support the official recorded weight.

A complete copy of the JPPSO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant essentially reiterated the comments  he
made in his statement submitted with his appeal (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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his  contentions  were
duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions or his
supporting  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 13 May 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
      Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
      Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jul 98, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, JPPSO-SAT/DIR, dated 25 Aug 98.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 7 Sep 98.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 16 Sep 98.




                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair