RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02772
                                        INDEX CODE:  128.01
                                        COUNSEL:  NONE

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her indebtedness to the government as a result of the excess weight  of  her
household goods (HHG) shipment be either reduced or eliminated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Prior to her permanent change of station (PCS) move she was  not  adequately
or accurately briefed on her Do-It-Yourself (DITY) move options  or  how  to
correctly annotate her professional items.  She drove two vehicles from  New
York to Mt. Home AFB, ID.  She was unaware that she  could  claim  DITY  for
that travel.  While enroute  one  of  her  vehicles  broke  down.   She  was
advised upon arrival at Mt. Home AFB that she could file an  amended  travel
voucher once the vehicle  was  retrieved.   However,  that  information  was
inaccurate and she once again lost money.  She  indicated  on  her  DD  Form
1299, Application for Shipment and/or Storage  of  Personal  Property,  that
her shipment would contain professional items.  Due to the  lack  of  proper
instruction, she  failed  to  annotate  the  inventory  to  distinguish  the
professional items from her personal belongings prior to  shipment  nor  was
she advised that she had the  option  to  identify  the  professional  items
immediately following delivery.

In her previous PCS move in 1996, from England to NY, the total  net  weight
of her HHGs shipment was 9,778 lbs.  In her move from  New  York  to  Idaho,
the total net weight was 12,726 lbs.  She realizes that  previous  shipments
cannot be used to substitute  for  the  weight  of  a  subsequent  shipment.
However, she has not purchased any significant items that  would  cause  her
HHG weight to significantly increase.  Her subsequent move  to  her  current
duty station, Elmendorf AFB, AK, yielded a total HHG net  weight  of  10,400
lbs.  Her inventory shows the same HHGs with a few minor  differences.   She
requested that her shipment be reweighed at Mt. Home AFB, but it  was  never
accomplished.  She was advised of her excessive weight  2  years  after  the
move, at which time there was no way for her  to  provide  evidence  to  the
contrary.  She believes her shipment was incorrectly weighed by the  carrier
and if she had been notified in a timely manner she  could  have  taken  the
appropriate actions to dispute  the  error.   The  Joint  Personal  Property
Shipping Office (JPPSO) acknowledges that  there  is  a  notification  delay
problem and they are working to fix it.

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.   Her  complete
submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the personnel data system reveals that the applicant,  a
prior service enlisted member, was appointed a second lieutenant Reserve  of
the Air Force on 29 Jun 98.  She was voluntarily ordered to extended  active
duty on 28 Jul  98.   She  is  currently  serving  in  the  grade  of  first
lieutenant having assumed that grade effective and with a date  of  rank  of
29 Jun 00.

Additional 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 Commander, Joint Personal Property Shipping  Office,  JPPSO/CC  reviewed
applicant’s request and recommends denial.  JPPSO/CC  states  that  she  was
billed $863.98 for exceeding her prescribed weight allowance of  12,000  lbs
as prescribed in the Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR).   She  filed  a
rebuttal of the charges claiming that there was a disparity  in  the  weight
of her HHGs as compared to the weight 2  years  earlier,  her  shipment  had
sustained some  loss/damage  during  transit,  and  the  traffic  management
office failed to reweigh her  shipment  at  destination.   The  Excess  Cost
Adjudication Function (ECAF) reviewed her case and  credited  her  with  148
pounds for irreparably damaged items, reducing the costs  to  $687.33.   She
was advised that her dissatisfaction  with  the  services  provided  by  the
carrier and inadequate counseling  regarding  DITY  moves  and  professional
items could not be used to reduce the excess cost.  It was explained to  her
that a  reweigh  would  have  been  desirable,  however,  this  function  is
procedural in nature and failure to perform a reweigh  does  not  invalidate
weight certificates already obtained for a shipment.  Carriers are  required
to provide certified weight tickets to the transportation  office  within  7
days after pickup of the shipment.  Thus, the weight  of  her  shipment  was
available  to  her  at  any  time  through   the   origin   or   destination
transportation office.

She did not provide any evidence to support her allegation that  her  weight
tickets were fraudulent.  The burden of establishing fraud  rests  upon  the
party alleging it.  Circumstantial evidence is competent only if it  affords
a clear inference  of  fraud  and  amounts  to  more  than  a  suspicion  or
conjecture.

She estimated that she would have 200 pounds of professional  items  at  the
time of her application.  However no items were identified on the  inventory
as such.  She states she was unaware of  the  requirement  to  separate  the
professional items from the rest of her  goods.   It  appears  she  received
some information regarding  professional  items  because  she  declared  her
intention  to  include  them  in  the  shipment.   Without  separating   the
professional items from her personal property, there is no way to  determine
the weight, if any, that should  be  credited  as  professional  items.   In
regards to her DITY move, she did not indicate what type  of  vehicles  they
were driving.  At the time of her move in 1998, only vehicles identified  in
AFI 24-501, The Air Force Do-It-Yourself Move Program, were  authorized  for
use in the DITY program.  No incentive payment  could  be  made  for  moving
personal property in vehicles designated primarily  for  passenger  carrying
(see Exhibit B).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded to the  advisory  and  states  that  there  is  a  major
disparity in the weight of her HHGs in the past  three  PCS  moves  she  has
made.  A dramatic increase by over 3,500 lbs in  her  NY  to  Mt.  Home  AFB
move.  She was informed that it was standard practice to reweigh a  shipment
if the maximum prescribed weight allowance is exceeded.  She had  no  reason
to suspect that she was over the  maximum  weight,  therefore  she  did  not
think to check with the transportation management  office  (TMO).   She  was
not notified of the excess weight.  If  she  had  been  diligent  enough  to
check or had she been informed, she would have  had  the  option  of  either
getting the shipment reweighed at the destination point or in her  house  by
an inspector.  By the time she received notification of  the  debt  she  had
been at Mt. Home AFB for 2 years and there was  no  way  at  that  point  to
refute the claim or provide any evidence of any kind.  She  reiterates  that
she was provided poor information during  her  initial  briefing.   She  did
annotate that she intended to ship 200 lbs of  professional  items  but  did
not know that she had to specifically label and set aside those items.   She
was under the impression that she had accomplished  what  was  necessary  by
annotating it on the form.  The vehicle that she drove on her DITY move  was
a 1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee SUV that she purchased specifically  to  move  as
much as possible by DITY.  Her second  vehicle  was  an  Oldsmobile  Cutlass
Supreme (see 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.  After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record and the applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not  persuaded
that further relief of her indebtedness  to  the  government  is  warranted.
Her contentions are duly noted; however, we do not  find  these  assertions,
in and by themselves, sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the  rationale
provided by the Air Force.  We considered the applicant’s request  that  she
be  allowed  to  file  an  after-the-fact  claim  for  a  DITY  move.    The
indebtedness that she incurred is a result  of  her  exceeding  her  maximum
allowed  weight  allowance.   We  note  that  generally,  the  DITY   weight
allowance is included in the maximum  allowable  weight  that  a  member  is
authorized during a permanent change of station move.   Consequently,  since
she already exceeded her maximum allowable weight  limit,  allowing  her  to
file an after-the-fact DITY move would not prove beneficial to her  efforts.
 Therefore, 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.  In  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  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 31 May 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Panel Chair
      Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
      Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member




The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Sep 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, JPPSO/CC, dated 19 Feb 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 Mar 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Apr 01.




                                   KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
                                   Panel Chair