RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  96-02029

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His indebtedness of $965.23 for shipment of his household goods  (HHG)
be remitted.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Numerous discrepancies beyond his control  rendered  the  calculations
utilized by the Joint Personal Shipping Office (JPPSO-SAT/ECAF) unjust
and resulted in his indebtedness.   The  weight  of  the  professional
goods and papers was significantly  underestimated  and  so  were  the
weights of the irreparably damaged items.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal  statement
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 is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
lieutenant colonel.  His Total Active Federal  Military  Service  Date
(TAFMSD) is 9 Jan 80.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Claims  Section,  DFAS-DE/FYDEC,  reviewed  this  application  and
recommended denial.  According to DFAS-DE/FYDEC,  they  contacted  the
Waivers and Remission Branch (DFAS-DE/FYDCT) for their recommendation.
 DFAS-DE/FYDEC was informed that based upon the  facts  presented  and
examination of the applicant’s appeal and  supporting  documents,  the
applicant’s HHG debt was ineligible for  consideration  in  accordance
with Transportation Debt Waivers, 67 Comptroller General  484  (1988).
Based on the evidence before them, DFAS-DE/FYDEC indicated they  found
that there had not been an error or injustice.

A complete copy of the DFAS-DE/FYDEC evaluation, with  attachment,  is
at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant indicated that the advisory opinion  failed  to  acknowledge
accountability for the errors committed by the government  during  the
shipment of  his  HHG.   The  indebtedness  which  resulted  from  the
overweight shipment of his HHG was unjust.  All or part of the  excess
would have been eliminated if the  inspectors  at  both  ends  of  the
shipment had performed their duties competently by  obtaining  precise
weights as requested.  It was clearly evident to both  inspectors  the
cubed weight of  the  shipment  exceeded  the  actual  weight  of  the
shipment.  The collection of the indebtedness would be against  equity
and good conscience.  The Air Force should not  hold  him  accountable
for the failure of the  Traffic  Management  Office  (TMO)  system  to
perform its responsibilities.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Director, Joint Personal Property
Shipping  Office,  JPPSO-SAT/DIR,  reviewed   this   application   and
recommended denial.  DIR noted that per Special Order AB-0580 dated 16
Feb 95, the applicant made a permanent change of  station  (PCS)  move
from Spangdahlem AB, Germany to Lackland AFB, Texas.   He  made  three
shipments of  personal  property  in  conjunction  with  his  PCS.   A
shipment of HHG moved from Germany to Lackland  AFB  under  Government
Bill of Lading (GBL) VP-154, 889.  It  had  a  net  weight  of  18,797
pounds.  A shipment of unaccompanied baggage (UB) with a net weight of
2,157 pounds moved from Germany to  Texas  under  GBL  VP-154,888.   A
second shipment of  HHG  moved  from  nontemporary  storage  (NTS)  at
Marysville, California to Texas under GBL XP-152,697.  It  had  a  net
weight of 2,440 pounds.  The applicant's shipments sustained loss  and
damage during transit.  He was reimbursed  $1,675.73  by  the  claim's
office at Lackland AFB.

DIR indicated that the applicant was billed $204.06 for exceeding  his
authorized weight allowance of 17,000 pounds.  He filed a rebuttal  of
the charges which states there were irreparably damaged items  in  the
shipment  plus  he  did  not      receive  credit  for  all   of   his
professional books, papers,  &  equipment  (PBP&E).   After  obtaining
additional information, the Excess Cost Adjudication  Function  (ECAF)
credited the member with additional PBP&E  and  cancelled  the  excess
cost charges.

In April 1996, ECAF received information and  documentation  regarding
the shipment from NTS.  They billed the applicant $1,125.61  based  on
the new information and documentation.  The applicant filed a rebuttal
of the charges stating he had not received proper credit for PBP&E  or
for irreparably damaged items contained in the shipment under GBL  VP-
154,888.  He stated that based on cubed weight calculations, he should
have received a weight credit of over 2,000  pounds  of  PBP&E  and  a
weight credit of 5,600 pounds for  irreparable  damaged  items.   ECAF
again reviewed the case and based on claim documentation, they granted
a weight credit of 493 pounds  for  missing  and  irreparably  damaged
items under GBL VP-154,889 and 108 pounds  for  items  under  GBL  VP-
154,888.  ECAF advised the member  that  weight  credits  allowed  for
missing and irreparably damaged items are not based on cube weight but
on the weight of the article itself.

Regarding the weight credit for PBP&E, DIR indicated that ECAF advised
the applicant that he was granted a weight of 1,400 pounds  for  PBP&E
contained in the UB shipment under GBL VP-154,888.  This is the actual
weight listed on the GBL and inventory.  The excess cost charges  were
reduced to $965.23 vice $1,125.61.  ECAF went on to explain  that  the
cube rule could not be used because it would produce  a  PBP&E  weight
credit that exceeded the entire weight of the shipment.  Total  weight
of the UB shipment (PBP&E  plus  personal  items)  was  2,157  pounds.
Applying the cube method for PBP&E would produce a PBP&E weight credit
of 2,160 pounds.

According to DIR, the applicant’s assertion that the cube rule  should
be used in determining his PBP&E is without merit.  To apply the  cube
rule would grant a weight credit for PBP&E  that  exceeds  the  entire
weight of the shipment.  He received a total PBP&E  weight  credit  of
2,200 pounds, 800 pounds for the HHG shipment and 1,400 pounds for  UB
shipment.  Additionally, DIR noted that on the applicant’s  subsequent
PCS, the shipment contained only 1,895 pounds of PBP&E.  The applicant
received a weight credit of 709 pounds due to loss or  damaged  items.
DIR indicated  that  a  weight  credit  applies  only  to  missing  or
irreparably damaged items.  No weight credit is authorized  for  those
items the applicant received for the cost of repairs.  The applicant’s
statement regarding no inspectors being available at either origin  or
destination  was  noted.   DIR  stated  that   any   difficulties   he
encountered  in  shipping  his  HHG  are  regrettable.   However,  the
difficulties did not increase the weight of his shipments.

A complete copy of the DIR evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his detailed response, the applicant indicated  that  the  advisory
opinion failed to fully address the circumstances  which  led  to  the
facts he addressed within his previous letter.  In his view, the frank
tendency to overlook details and the failure  to  address  the  issues
were the crux of his complaints.  According  to  the  applicant,  what
initially started as an attempt to clarify the  documentation  of  the
actual PPB&E weight of his shipments  during  1995  has  evolved  into
frustration, disgust, and contempt for the process to seek  assistance
from quality  control  inspectors,  the  lack  of  their  professional
accountability, and the system  which  was  designed  to  rectify  any
alleged injustices.  Throughout the PCS process in 1995,  he  followed
prior instructions to  contact  inspectors  to  address  any  problems
encountered with the agents.  Even though he did so on  both  ends  of
the PCS, the assistance he received  was  inadequate  or  nonexistent.
Corrective actions to address his concerns  when  they  occurred  were
beyond his control.  However, his claims might have been substantiated
had SSgt C--- and Mr. M--- coordinated an inspection of the shipment.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, JPPSO/DIR, reviewed this  application
and indicated that  when  a  shipment  sustains  loss  or  irreparably
damaged items, recovery of unearned  transportation  charges  for  the
loss/damaged items are pursued against the carrier in accordance  with
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
49, Section 375.15(b).  At the time the carrier disposes of claims for
loss, damage, or injury to the articles in  the  shipment,  they  must
refund that portion of their published freight charges (including  any
charges for accessorial or terminal services)  corresponding  to  that
portion of the  shipment  which  is  lost  or  destroyed  in  transit.
Recovery is based on the actual weight of the missing  or  irreparably
damaged articles for which replacement costs were paid to the  member.
Recovery  must  be  based  on  a  realistic  weight.   The  member  is
subsequently granted a weight credit based on the weights used by  the
government to recoup the  unearned  transportation  charges  from  the
carrier for the loss/irreparably damaged items.

Regarding the quality assurance (QA) inspectors,  DIR  indicated  that
the Tender of Service specifies requirements and standards of  service
that the carrier agrees to fulfill in the  movement  of  DOD-sponsored
personal  property  shipments.   According   to   DIR,   it   is   the
responsibility of the QA inspectors to  ensure  the  requirements  and
standards are met.  Unless the applicant called  the  QA  branch,  DIR
indicated that they were unaware of his request to have  an  inspector
present at the time of delivery.  Mr. M---  stated  that  he  did  not
recall the incident in question, but believes he  would  have  advised
the applicant of the need  to  call  the  office  to  arrange  for  an
inspector.  They are not in a position to comment on what  information
the applicant was provided at origin nor were they aware his  shipment
was repacked prior to departing Germany.

A complete copy of the DIR evaluation is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant indicated that the “system” had  failed
to protect his interests during the shipment of his belongings and now
is attempting to deny any accountability.  In essence, it appears  the
entire process is a “toothless tiger”  wrapped  in  an  awful  lot  of
bureaucratic paper.  He requests that  the  Board  review  the  actual
facts and make an effort to hold the QA inspection system  accountable
for its professional incompetence  by  refunding  the  monies  he  was
charged

Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice.  Applicant contends that the
weight of the his professional books, papers and equipment (PBP&E) was
significantly  underestimated  and  so  were  the   weights   of   his
irreparably damaged items.  After a thorough review of the  facts  and
circumstances of this case,  we  believe  sufficient  doubt  has  been
raised whether the applicant’s weight for his  PBP&E  and  irreparably
damaged items was appropriately established.  Furthermore, we are  not
persuaded  that  the  quality  control  inspectors   were   adequately
responsive to his concerns,  which  he  apparently  brought  to  their
attention.  In our opinion, any doubt concerning this matter should be
resolved in favor of the applicant.  Accordingly,  we  recommend  that
his records be corrected as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the shipment  of  his
household goods under Government Bills of Lading (GBLs) VP-154,888 and
VP-154,889 contained a total of 3,837 pounds  of  Professional  Books,
Paper and Equipment (PBP&E).

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 1 Sep 98 and 22 Jul 99, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair
      Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member
      Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member

By a majority vote,  the  Board  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as
recommended.  Mr. Wheeler voted to deny the appeal but did not  desire
to submit a minority report.  The following documentary  evidence  was
considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jul 96, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, DFAS-DE/FYDEC, dated 14 Aug 96.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Sep 96.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, applicant, dated 4 Sep 96.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, JPPSO/DIR, dated 26 Jun 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 13 Jul 98.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, applicant, dated 14 Jul 98.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, JPPSO/DIR, dated 4 Feb 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Feb 99.
     Exhibit J.  Letter, applicant, dated 28 Feb 99.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                   Panel Chair









AFBCMR 96-02029




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to , be corrected to show that the shipment of his
household goods under Government Bills of Lading (GBLs) VP-154,888 and
VP-154,889 contained a total of 3,837 pounds of PBP&E.







    JOE G. LINEBERGER

    Director

    Air Force Review Boards Agency