RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02106
INDEX CODE: 128.00, 128.14
APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reimbursed in the amount of $659.72 for shipping expenses he
incurred because his privately owned vehicle (POV) exceeded the maximum
allowable size limit of 20 measurement tons.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He submitted his request for reimbursement to the United States General
Accounting Office (GAO) and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service
(DFAS-DE), Denver, CO. Both agencies denied his request for
reimbursement.
He has a large family and would like to be treated like any other Air
Force member who ships their vehicle overseas. The vehicle could not be
shipped or processed unless the bill was paid up-front. The Traffic
Management Office (TMO) told him he could submit a waiver request;
however, the POV would not be shipped until the waiver was either
approved or disapproved. This situation has created a financial burden
for him and his family.
A smaller vehicle will not accommodate all eight of his dependents safely
and/or without breaking seat belt laws. This vehicle was previously
shipped to England; it exceeded the maximum allowable size limit
resulting in an additional cost, the debt was remitted by the Air Force,
and the same rule should now be applied.
The applicant submitted a copy of his waiver/remission of indebtedness
application, denial of his waiver/remission of indebtedness application,
a DD Form 1131 (Cash Collection Voucher), and other supporting documents.
His complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is an enlisted member of the Regular Air Force who is
currently serving in the grade of technical sergeant. He was assigned to
duties at RAF Mildenhall, England effective 30 Nov 97, from a base in the
Continental United States (CONUS).
On 30 Dec 97 the applicant was notified that by JPPSO-SAT/ECAF that he
owed $375.77 resulting from excess cost for the shipment his POV to
England from the United States.
On 3 Mar 98, he submitted an application of debt remission for the excess
cost for the shipment his POV. On 13 May 98 his debt remission request
for remission of a debt in the amount of $375.77, resulting from excess
cost for the shipment his POV from the United States to England, was
approved.
Pursuant to Special Orders AB-036 dated 9 Feb 00, the applicant’s
dependents returned from England to the United States on early return of
dependent travel orders. The applicant shipped his POV from England to
the United States.
On 6 Mar 00, the applicant incurred excess cost in the amount of $659.72
as a result of his POV being oversized. Subsequent to his payment for
the incurred cost, the applicant submitted a waiver/remission of
indebtedness application requesting reimbursement. On 12 Apr 00, DFAS-
DE/FYCT, returned the applicant’s remission request without action.
DE/FYCT stated the record showed that the debt had been fully liquidated,
thereby precluding remission consideration under the provisions of Title
10, United States Code, Section 6161.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Commander, Joint Personal Property Shipping Office (JPPSO), San
Antonio, TX, (DOD), reviewed the application and recommended denial.
JPPSO stated that the applicant did not provide any information to
support a probable error or injustice, only that he has a large family.
JPPSO stated that the maximum vehicle size is established by the Joint
Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) and is not predicated on family size.
JPPSO also stated that should the Board decide to grant relief, the
records may be changed to state the member requested shipment of an
oversized POV due to medical reasons and competent authority approved the
request in accordance with the provisions of paragraph U5415-C, JFTR
(Exhibit C).
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1
Sep 00 for review and comment. As of this date, this office has received
no response (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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable injustice. While there is no indication that the
indebtedness determination related to the shipment of the applicant’s POV
was erroneous or improper, after reviewing the evidence presented, the
Board majority is of the opinion that approval of the requested relief is
warranted in this case. It appears that the applicant was provided
misleading information when he shipped his POV to England and we assume
that his debt was remitted based on the miscounseling. The Board
majority believes it unfair and a continuation of the injustice stemming
from the miscounseling to require the applicant to pay the excess
shipping expenses required by the JFTR when the vehicle was returned to
the United States. Accordingly, the Board’s majority believes his
records should be corrected in the following manner.
___________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that competent authority
approved his request submitted under the provisions of Paragraph U5415-C
of the Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR), to ship an oversized POV
in connection with the return of his dependents to the Continental United
States from England due to medical reasons.
___________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 15 November 2000 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
Messers. Kausal and Carey voted to correct the records, as recommended.
Mr. Roj voted to deny the application but did not elect to submit a
minority report. The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 June 2000, with attachments.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, JPPSO-SA/CC, dated 18 August 2000, with
attachments.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 September 2000.
BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 00-01686
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 competent authority
approved his request submitted under the provisions of Paragraph U5415-C
of the Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR), to ship an oversized POV
in connection with the return of his dependents to the Continental United
States from England due to medical reasons.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00760
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. Para U5410-A provides that when a POV shipment is authorized, one POV not to exceed 20 measurement tons may be transported from the POV port or vehicle processing center (VPC) serving the old permanent duty station (PDS) to the unloading port/VPC serving the new PDS. However, other than his own assertions, he has provided no evidence substantiating his claims.
According to JPPSO, the applicant’s HHG shipment exceeded the maximum authorized weight allowance and in accordance with paragraph U5340, JFTR, she is liable for all transportation costs arising from transportation of HHG in excess of the authorized allowance. The evidence of record indicates that the applicant, after the death of her husband, a former service member, shipped HHG from Virginia to Colorado with a net weight of 29,200 pounds, including 3,057 pounds for the shipment of a POV. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02107
The applicant questioned the TMO regarding exceeding his weight allowance since his previous PCS shipment was not in excess of the allowance, as he had not received a notification of excess cost for the move. The applicant was informed that he may have exceeded his HHGs weight allowance and could have requested the shipment be reweighed at that time. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicants complete submission, we are persuaded the failure to timely notify the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03390
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was advised by the traffic management office (TMO) at Spangdahlem Air Base (AB), Germany, that he could ship his vehicle at personal expense and be reimbursed up to what it would cost the government to ship the vehicle. In addition to shipping his POV at personal expense without authorization from the TMO, the applicant did not use a United States (U.S.) flag vessel to ship the POV. The applicant...
She indicated on her DD Form 1299, Application for Shipment and/or Storage of Personal Property, that her shipment would contain professional items. In support of her request applicant provided a memorandum from the Quality Assurance office; her excess cost rebuttal adjudication letter; DD Forms 139, Pay Adjustment Authorization; DD Form 1299; AF Form 767, Extended Active Duty Order; and, Notification of Indebtedness letter. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01077
Since the applicant’s POV did not meet the standards for operations in New Zealand without major modifications, he was entitled to ship the vehicle from his assignment at the time to the CONUS for storage. His private owned vehicle (POV) was erroneously shipped from Japan to New Zealand under the authority of Special Order AA- 1299, dated 7 Aug 03, and is authorized to be reshipped from New Zealand to the appropriate vehicle processing center for storage under the provisions of the Joint...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00761
Flag carrier service is not available must be provided to the member and must be attached to the request for reimbursement. As to the applicant’s request for reimbursement for the mileage of this vehicle, we concur with the JPPSO-SAT/ECAF assessment and are of the opinion that the applicant should be reimbursed for the mileage to get the vehicle to the POV port or vehicle processing center serving the old permanent duty station, since it appears that he would have been entitled to...
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. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01038
When he sent in his rebuttal to the excess costs, the only response he received was an increase in his total debt from $1364.09 to $1452.91 for shipment of a desk with his professional gear. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: JPPSO/ECAF recommends that the excess cost charges associated with shipment of the applicant’s household goods be reduced from $1452.91 to $942.26. After a complete review of the evidence of record, we believe that...
It appears that in each instance that the applicant requested an extension for non-temporary storage (NTS) of his household goods (HHG), he was informed that the request for extension was approved; however, he was not advised there would be a cost to him commencing one year after termination of active duty. However, JPPSO/DIR states that they would support storage entitlement to 6 October 1997, the time he was informed of the debt and the applicant would be responsible for storage costs in...