RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 99-01424
INDEX CODE: 128.14
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His household goods be reshipped from Meridian, MS, to his home of
record (Atlanta, GA) at government expense.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or
unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application 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 Plans and Operations Division, JPPSO-SA/XO, reviewed this
application and recommended denial. XO stated that review of the
circumstances clearly indicates the household goods (HHG) were not
shipped to Meridan, MS, in error. They were shipped to MS at the
applicant’s request. Although the applicant stated he wanted the
shipment diverted to GA, he did not take the steps necessary to
accomplish the diversion. He was advised the shipment could be
diverted, while still in transit, if the request was made in writing.
The applicant stated he elected not to make the request in writing.
Thus, no error or injustice occurred in the shipment of the HHG to MS.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that in his
discussions with a counselor from Quality Support, Inc., he was told
that he could redirect his shipment immediately to GA with a request
in writing. The counselor also told him that he could let the
shipment continue to MS and once it got there, his shipment could be
redirected to GA (at government expense). He was told that this was
the best option under the circumstances. He agreed with the counselor
and this is why he did not send a request diverting his household
goods while they were enroute. He was also informed that a letter was
not required if he elected to have his household goods arrive in MS
first, with a follow-on shipment to GA. The applicant’s complete
response to the advisory opinion is at 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. After a thorough review
of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, the Board
majority is unpersuaded that an error or injustice exists. His
contentions are duly noted; however, the Board majority did not find
these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office
of primary responsibility. Other than his own assertions, he has
failed to provide statements that he was misinformed or miscounseled
regarding the shipment of his HHGs. Therefore, in the absence of
sufficient evidence to the contrary, the Board majority agrees with
the recommendation of the appropriate Air Force office and adopts the
rationale expressed as the basis for their decision that the applicant
has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered
either an error or an injustice. Accordingly, the Board majority
finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in
this application.
_________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 16 November 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
Ms. Bradley and Ms. Vestal voted to deny applicant's request. Dr.
Kauvar voted to grant the applicant's request but did not desire to
submit a minority report. The following documentary evidence was
considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 May 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, JJPSO-SA/XO, dated 29 Jul 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 16 Aug 99.
Exhibit E. Letter from applicant, dated 16 Sep 99.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 99-01424
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of APPLICANT
I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members. A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied. I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted. Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.
Please advise the applicant accordingly.
JOE G.
LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force
Review Boards Agency
Normally, when the carrier arrives at destination, they contact the destination transportation office who coordinate the delivery with the military member. 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. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 16 Nov 99,...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02343
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02343 INDEX CODE: 128.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 6 FEB 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His transportation entitlements be reinstated to allow a final move and shipment of his household goods (HHG). He completed 20 years of active service for retirement. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01404 INDEX NUMBER: 112.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) to the grade of staff sergeant be changed from 12 September 1996 to 1 May 1993, the DOR held during his previous Regular Air Force enlistment. At the time of his separation, he was serving in the grade of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02714
The Government Bill of Lading (GBL) weight for moving his household goods exceeded the maximum allowable weight authorized by the Joint Federal Transportation Regulation (JFTR) allowance of 14,500 pounds There appears to be a gross weight miscalculation on the weight charged by the contract carrier. With the error of JPPSO failing to weigh his shipment, there is no way to determine the correct weight of his household goods shipment. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01319 INDEX CODE: 128 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive a remission of indebtedness of the excess weight of household goods (HHG) shipment. At no time did anyone from TMO explain to his wife that the maximum weight for the household goods was 9,000 pounds. As of this date, no...
In their advisory (Exhibit B), the Joint Personal Property Shipping Office (JPPSO) recommends the applicant’s HHG weight be further reduced to 19,980, which would leave 2,480 over the maximum JFTR allowance. Therefore, we recommend that his records be corrected to reflect that his HHG were not overweight and, as a result, he did not incur a debt. Letter, JPPSO, dated 25 May 99, w/atchs.
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. 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...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02069
She was not able to use her HHG shipping entitlement during the allotted time and requested an extension. 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 the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
Members of the Board, Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, and Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, considered this application on 23 August 2000. Charlene M. Bradley Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, HQ ARPC/DPBB, dtd 24 Jun 00 AFBCMR 99-00099 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for...