RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                 DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00902
                       INDEX CODE:  128.10
                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive full relief of an unjust and unfounded financial indebtedness  of
$856.19 inappropriately assigned to him as a result of a Traffic  Management
Office (TMO) Permanent Change of Station (PCS) action.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He  has  patiently  and  appropriately  exhausted  all  routine  rebuttal
channels and asks the Board  to  correct  this  injustice  based  on  the
following mitigating considerations:

   a. Illogical weight ticket versus inventory listing and  recent  pack-
      out experience.
   b. Lack of proper segregation and weight credit for professional gear.
   c. TMO lost original comprehensive rebuttal package that held  photos;
      original documents, and witness's statements  that  undermined  his
      adjudication.
   d. Improper process of certifying overweight shipment and notification
      process.
   e. Subsequent denial of authorized weight credits  for  condemned/lost
      property and water-damaged property and packing material.
   f.  Improper  inventory  process  and  communications  dilemmas   with
      overseas laborers.
   g. Improper assignment of penalty fees.
   h. Relief of grievous  injustice  resulting  from  atrocious  move  by
      debarred vendor.

In support of his application, he  has  provided  a  personal  statement,
copies of documents concerning his PCS  move,  and  other  correspondence
relative to the issue.

A complete copy of the applicant’s submission is at 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  (JPPSO)  Commander  reviewed
this application and recommends denial.  JPPSO/CC  states  the  applicant
was billed $698.42 for  exceeding  the  authorized  weight  allowance  of
14,500 pounds.  He filed a rebuttal listing a number of problems  ha  had
with the move, including lost and damaged items from the  shipment.   The
Excess Cost Adjudication Function (ECAF) reviewed the case and determined
the applicant had shipped personal property in excess of  his  prescribed
weight allowance.  However, ECAF adjusted the weights  of  two  shipments
and added the  weights  of  two  shipments  not  identified  in  previous
computations.  Using  the  cube  rule,  ECAF  increased  the  weight  for
professional books, papers, and equipment (PBP&G), from 50 pounds to  960
pounds for the unaccompanied  baggage  (UB)  shipment  and  credited  457
pounds for missing and irreparably damaged items for the household  goods
(HHG) shipment that moved from Germany to England.   With  identification
of the two additional shipments, the excess cost charges  were  increased
to $856.19.

JPPSO/CC states the applicant’s authorized weight allowance at  the  time
of his PCS move was 14,500 pounds, the weight allowance for all  captains
with  dependants.   He  exceeded  the  authorized  weight  allowance   by
effecting four shipments of personal property with a combined net  weight
of 20,419 pounds.  After receiving weight credits for packing  materials,
1,120 pounds for PBP&E, and 457 pounds for missing or irreparably damaged
items, the net chargeable weight was reduced to 16, 903 pounds.

JPPSO/CC indicates the applicant submitted an amendment to  his  original
application in which he states he made another PCS move from England back
to Germany and he was not overweight on that move.  The weight identified
in the amendment only involves one shipment.  On the  previous  PCS  from
Germany to England, there were four shipments involved.  In  addition  to
the HHG and the UB shipments from Germany, there was a HHG shipment  from
Spokane, WA to Lebanon, IN and a shipment  of  UB  from  Spokane,  WA  to
England.   The  combine  weights  of  the  four  shipments  exceeded  his
entitlement of 14,500 pounds.  The excess cost charges were  computed  on
the Germany to England HHG shipment because it provided the least cost to
the applicant.

In view of the above,  JPPSO/CC  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s
request to expunge his indebtedness associated with his HHG from  Germany
to England.  While any difficulty the applicant may have experience  with
his move is regrettable, the difficulties in and of  themselves  did  not
increase the weights of the shipments involved.   Thus,  he  is  not  the
victim of an error or injustice in rewards to the weight of his HHG.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and continues  to  assert
his position.  The applicant still  contends  the  moving  vendor  weight
ticket to be fraudulent, however he cannot prove to JPPSO there is  merit
in his case.  However, considering the worse case scenario  as  presented
by JPPSO, the applicant would be entitleted to 14,500 pounds for his  PCS
move.  The standardized weight  losses  (produced  from  automated  claim
products  which  originate  their  figures  from  JPPSO  standard  weight
estimates) were 1,585 pounds plus the PBP&E weight of 2,830 pounds (cited
in JPPSO letter) would total to 4,415 pounds of weight reduction credits.
 These figures are contrary to the 1,417 pounds (457+960) used in JPPSO’s
calculation.  Therefore, even the over-inflated and illogical weights  of
the four shipments the net chargeable rate of 16,093 must be  reduced  an
additional 2,998 pounds (4,415-1,417)  to  equate  to  a  total  billable
shipment of only 13,095.  The  applicant  contends  that  JPPSO  did  not
review his comprehensive package  as  conscientiously  presented  in  his
application to the board.  JPPSO used the same  answers  and  comptroller
quotes they hay been using for more than two years.  The applicant states
that he feels he  has  presented  far  more  evidence  than  required  to
alleviate the unjust debt of $856.19.

A complete copy of the applicant’s rebuttal 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice warranting partial relief.  The
board is of the opinion there are certain mitigating circumstances
evident in this case.  The weight tickets in comparison to the inventory
listing were incorrect.  There appears to be evidence to support
discrepancies in the actual weights of household goods shipped and that
reported by the moving contractor who was undergoing debarment action.
The Traffic Management Office (TMO) lost original comprehensive photos,
original documents and witness statements in the applicant's rebuttal
package to the initial over charges.  We are not convinced that the
applicant is completely at fault in this matter and to avoid any further
injustice to the applicant, we recommend partial relief of the debt
incurred as a result of the PCS move.
___________________________________________________________________

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 cost for the
shipment that was moved under Government Bill of Lading VP-497,656 dated
27 May 97 was $2815.48.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on October 3, 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Panel Chair
      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following
documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149 w/atchs, dated 1 Mar 00.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, JPPSO, dated 19 Jun 00.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 7 Jul 00.
     Exhibit E.  Applicant's Response, dated 7 Jul 00




                                  PEGGY E. GORDON
                                  Acting Panel Chair











AFBCMR 00-00902




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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the shipment cost for the
shipment of his Household Goods (HHG) moved under Government Bill of Lading
VP-XXXX,656, dated 27 May 97, was $2815.48.








JOE G. LINEBERGER

Director

Air Force Review Boards Agency