RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00981

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be reimbursed the $3,769.09 she  had  to  pay  for  exceeding  her
authorized weight allowance for the shipment of  her  household  goods
(HHG).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There was probable fraud and a disregard for the  regulations  by  the
carrier during the shipment  of  her  HHG.   This  was  compounded  by
inadequate preparation by the originating  Traffic  Management  Office
(TMO),  and,  almost  no  quality  assurance,  customer  service,   or
representation of Air Force interests by the receiving TMO.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal  statement
and documentation pertaining to the shipment of her HHG.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

At the time the applicant submitted her appeal,  she  was  serving  on
active duty in the grade of major.   Information  extracted  from  the
Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates that the applicant has a date of
separation (DOS) of 9 Sep 99.  Her Total Active  Federal  Commissioned
Service Date (TAFCSD) and Total Active Federal Military  Service  Date
(TAFMSD) are 21 Aug 95.

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,  Plans  &  Operations
Division, JPPSO/XO, reviewed this application and recommended  denial.
JPPSO/XO noted that the applicant  was  called  to  active  duty  from
Arvada, Colorado, and assigned to Fairchild AFB, Washington.  She made
a shipment of HHG in conjunction with her  assignment.   The  shipment
moved under Government Bill of Lading (GBL) YP-237, 577.   It  had  an
origin net weight of 26,460 pounds.  A reweigh at destination produced
a lower net weight of 26,200 pounds.  She  was  billed  $4,182.21  for
exceeding her authorized weight allowance of 14,500 pounds.

According to JPPSO/XO, the applicant contacted the  TMO  at  Fairchild
AFB who assisted her in filing a rebuttal of the  overweight  charges.
The rebuttal states, in part, the weight  ticket  at  origin  did  not
identify the trailer number, GBL number, or Carlyle  as  the  carrier;
the reweigh performed at destination had not been requested  by  their
office and the tare weight on the trailer was not obtained until three
days after the delivery.  The rebuttal further stated  that  using  DD
Form 1701, they estimated the shipment weight to be 16,642.

The Excess Cost Adjudication Function (ECAF) reviewed  the  case  file
and determined the applicant had shipped personal property  in  excess
of the prescribed weight allowance.  However, applying the cube  rule,
they increased the weight credit for professional books,  papers,  and
equipment (PBP&E) to 900 pounds, used the lower  reweigh  weight,  and
omitted the $80.00 destination third party service charge.  The excess
cost charges was reduced to $3,769.09 vice $4,182.21.

JPPSO/XO indicated that the applicant was billed excess  cost  charges
because  her  HHG  shipment  weight  exceeded  the  prescribed  weight
authorization for her grade.   Paragraph  U5340-B(1),  JFTR,  provides
that the total cost of transportation shall be prorated on  the  basis
that the member bears the portion that the excess net weight bears  to
the total net weight  transported.   The  applicant  states  that  the
carrier may have committed fraud regarding the weight of her shipment.
 However, she did not provide evidence to support the allegation.   In
similar cases, the Comptroller General has consistently held that  the
burden of establishing fraud rests upon the party alleging it and that
the fraud must be  proven  by  evidence  sufficient  to  overcome  the
existing presumption of  honesty  and  fair  dealing.   Circumstantial
evidence is competent only if it affords a clear  inference  of  fraud
and amounts to more than a suspicion or conjecture.  If, however,  the
circumstances are as consistent with honesty and fair dealing as  with
dishonesty, the inference of honesty is required to be drawn.

JPPSO/XO stated that carriers participating in the Department  of  the
Defense (DoD) personal property program are paid on the bases  of  GBL
weights as supported by proper  weight  certificates.   Any  estimates
provided by carrier or transportation personnel prior to  loading  are
just that, an estimate.  The carrier provided weight  tickets  showing
an origin weight of 26,460 pounds and a destination weight  of  26,200
pounds.  The origin weight tickets identify the GBL number,  shipper's
name, and tractor number.   The  destination  weight  tickets  do  not
contain the GBL number, but do list  the  member's  name  and  tractor
number.  Both sets of  weight  tickets  were  signed  by  weighmasters
provided by the states of Colorado and Washington.

In decisions B- 195256, November 15, 1975 and B-198576, June 10, 1981,
the Comptroller General held that  where  the  transportation  voucher
prepared by a mover in support of its charges is supported by a  valid
weight certificate or weight tickets, in the absence of fraud or clear
error in the computation,  the  Government  must  rely  on  the  scale
certifications of record in  computing  excess  costs.   Thus,  absent
computational errors, or fraud, the Government is bound  by  a  weight
certificate unless the certificate is shown to be invalid.   In  order
to show invalidity, one must show that the certificate is  clearly  in
error.

According to JPPSO/XO, the fact that the carrier obtained a reweigh at
destination without being ordered to do so by the destination  TMO  is
not a violation of regulation.  Some carriers require  a  reweigh  for
their  own  purposes  in  establishing  charges  with  their   agents.
However, the Government is not required to pay for the second weighing
unless it was requested  by  transportation  personnel.   The  reweigh
provided a benefit to the applicant as the  excess  cost  charges  are
based on the lower destination weights.   If  the  reweigh  ticket  is
invalidated, it would require the charges to be recalculated based  on
the higher origin weights.

Normally, when the carrier arrives at destination,  they  contact  the
destination transportation office who coordinate the delivery with the
military member.  Sometimes when the carrier arrives  during  non-duty
hours, they will contact the member direct and ask if  the  member  is
willing to accept delivery of their shipment.  If it is convenient for
the member, they may accept delivery during non-duty hours.   However,
members are not required to accept  delivery  during  non-duty  hours,
weekends, or holidays.  Therefore,  when  the  carrier  contacted  the
applicant and offered to deliver her shipment  on  Sunday,  she  could
have refused delivery until the next duty day.

JPPSO/XO indicated that when a shipment is awarded to a  carrier,  the
carrier is given a certain amount of  time  to  get  the  shipment  to
destination based on estimated weight of the shipment and the distance
involved.  The Government has no control over the number of drivers or
routes the carrier is to use.  The shipment may arrive at  destination
at any time as long as it meets the agreed upon date.

According  to  JPPSO/XO,  the  applicant’s   shipment   exceeded   the
prescribed weight allowance as evidence by two sets of weight tickets,
one at origin and one at  destination.   Both  sets  of  tickets  were
signed by certified weighmasters under  authority  of  the  states  of
Colorado and Washington.

A complete copy of the JPPSO/XO evaluation, with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant indicated that she does not  dispute  the  validity  of  the
weight tickets submitted by the carrier,  despite  the  problems  with
identifying information on the various tickets.  She contends that the
carrier fraudulently increased the weight of the shipment in order  to
increase the billed amount.  She has no specifics as to how  this  was
actually done, but she would suggest material that did not  belong  to
her was included in the shipment in Colorado  and  not  removed  until
after delivery in Washington.  As previously  stated,  she  was  never
informed that she should make  sure  the  truck  was  empty  prior  to
loading and after delivery, or failing this, she  should  verify  that
the shipper had proper  weight  tickets  showing  the  weight  of  the
additional material.

Again, a major part of the problem with her shipment was the  lack  of
counseling by the originating Traffic Management Office (TMO), despite
completion of the required HHG counseling  session.   Her  only  prior
experience with HHG shipping was in the private world where the  final
weight was a guaranteed maximum based on the initial estimate made  by
the carrier.  No mention was made by the counseling TMO that the final
shipment  weight  would  be   based   on   actual   weight,   and   no
suggestion/instruction was given that  she  should  obtain  the  final
weight prior to unloading.  As a result, she did not force the carrier
to give her a final weight  prior  to  unloading.   Even  if  she  had
obtained this weight prior to unloading, she would not have  known  to
refuse delivery, as no mention was made by the counseling TMO that the
shipment not only could but should be processed through the  Fairchild
TMO prior to actual delivery.

Finally, she believes that the carrier, who obviously  understood  the
military TMO system very well, saw an opportunity to take advantage of
a naïve, poorly prepared, inexperienced military person and took  full
advantage.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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 her  contentions  were
duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions or her
supporting  documentation  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the
rationale provided by JPPSO/XO.  Therefore, in the  absence  of  clear
and  convincing  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we   agree   with   the
recommendation of JPPSO/XO and adopt their rationale as the basis  for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain  her  burden  of
establishing that she 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 16 Nov 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
      Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, JPPSO/XO, dated 11 Jun 99.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 28 Jun 99.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, applicant, dated 6 Jul 99.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair