RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01537
            INDEX CODE:  128.14

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Applicant is the widow of a former service member  who  requests  that
the former service member’s records be corrected to reflect a shipment
of only 17,500 pounds of household goods (HHG) under  Government  Bill
of Lading (GBL) AP-492716.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Based on the moving company’s estimate, she was told  that  she  would
not  exceed  her  household  goods  weight  allowance  17,500  pounds.
Because of that advice, she took no action to reduce the items in  her
household goods.  She had just moved from two (2)  years  earlier  and
did not exceed the weight limitation.  Additionally, she  was  advised
by the Director, Traffic  Branch,  Norfolk,  Virginia,  that  she  was
entitled to ship her  privately  owned  vehicle  (POV)  at  government
expense and it would not be charged against her household goods weight
allowance.  They apparently misinterpreted the  Joint  Federal  Travel
Regulations (JFTR),  Volume 1, Paragraph U5455E1, because at the  time
of shipment her husband was deceased and  not  on  active  duty.   Her
shipment was tendered to a commercial household goods carrier  at  189
percent of the Military Traffic Management Command’s rate solicitation
D-6.  Shipments are generally tendered at the maximum of  100  percent
of the rate  solicitation.   Also,  her  shipment  was  never  cleared
through the destination office by the  moving  company,  therefore,  a
reweigh of her household goods could not be performed to validate  the
true weight of my shipment.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal  statement
and documentation pertaining to the shipment of her household goods.

Applicant’s complete submission is 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 Joint Personal Property Shipping Office, JPPSO-SAT, reviewed  this
application and noted that the former service member’s name was placed
on the temporary disability retired list effective 23 Dec 97,  and  he
passed away on 7 May 99.  On 3 Aug 00, the applicant made  a  shipment
of HHG from Virginia Beach, Virginia, to Colorado  Springs,  Colorado.
The shipment moved under Government Bill of  Lading  (GBL)  AP-492716.
It had a net weight of 29,200 pounds that included  a  POV.   She  was
billed $6,313.15 for  the  unauthorized  POV  and  for  exceeding  the
authorized weight allowance of 17,500 pounds.  The applicant  filed  a
rebuttal of the excess cost charges stating that during the packing of
her HHG, the carrier advised her she was entitled to ship a  POV  with
the  HHG.   She  contacted  the  Personal  Property  Office,  Norfolk,
Virginia, and was advised she definitely was authorized to ship a  POV
with her HHG and the weight of the POV would  not  count  against  her
weight allowance.  She also stated the carrier  advised  her  she  was
close to, but not over, her authorized  weight  allowance.   She  also
provided documentation to show that the previous move from Okinawa  to
Virginia was within the authorized weight allowance.

The Excess Cost Adjudication Function (ECAF)  reviewed  the  case  and
advised the applicant that in accordance with the  provisions  of  the
JFTR and the authority contained in the orders, she was limited  to  a
17,500 pounds weight allowance.  Thus, she had exceeded the authorized
weight entitlement, plus the POV was not authorized.  The charges were
determined to be $3,763.28 for the excess HHG weight and $2,549.87 for
the unauthorized POV for a total of $6,313.15.  They also advised  the
applicant that  weights  of  previous  shipments  cannot  be  used  to
substitute for the weight of a subsequent shipment, and estimates made
prior to loading of the property or verbal  opinions  on  whether  the
property will exceed the allowance are not binding and cannot be  used
to refute the officially recorded weight.

JPPSO also noted that at the time the former service member was placed
on the TDRL he held the grade of 0-5.  JPPSO indicated that as an  0-5
with dependents, the shipment of HHG is limited to  a  net  weight  of
17,500 pounds.  The applicant made a shipment of HHG with a net weight
of 29,200 pounds  that  included  a  POV.   Paragraph  U5455-E,  JFTR,
authorizes overland transportation of  a  vehicle  when  a  member  on
active duty is officially reported as dead, injured,  ill,  or  absent
for a period of more than 29 days in a missing status.  As the  member
was no longer on active duty, shipment of a vehicle overland  was  not
authorized under Special Order ACD-0084.   However,  the  Consolidated
Personal Property Shipping Office (CPPSO), Norfolk, Virginia,  advised
the applicant that she was entitled to ship a POV with her HHG and  on
5 Jul 00, and they issued a GBL correction notice  to  include  a  POV
with the shipment of HHG.

Regarding the applicant’s statement the carrier advised her  that  her
shipment was within the weight allowance or  “close”  and  their  last
move  was  within  the  weight  entitlement,  JPPSO  stated  that  any
estimates made by carrier personnel prior  to  packing,  loading,  and
weighing of a shipment are just that, an estimate.   Estimates  cannot
be used to refute the officially recorded  weight  certificates.   The
weight of the shipment was obtained on certified scales and signed  by
a weight master provided by the state of  Virginia.   The  Comptroller
General has consistently held that the weight of a  previous  shipment
cannot be used to determine the weight of a subsequent shipment.

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.  However,
JPPSO thinks she was  the  victim  of  an  error  when  transportation
personnel authorized the inclusion of a POV with the shipment of  HHG.
For this reason, JPPSO believes  the  weight  of  the  vehicle,  3,057
pounds, should be deducted from the shipment weight.  Removal  of  the
POV shipment cost would reduce the excess cost charges to $3,763.28.

A complete copy of the JPPSO evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 7 Sep
01 for review and response.  As of this date,  no  response  has  been
received by this office (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________


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.   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.  As a result, she exceeded the  authorized  weight  allowance  of
17,500 pounds.  Notwithstanding her assertions to the contrary,  after
a thorough review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we  are
of the opinion that the applicant should be held responsible  for  the
cost of the shipment  of  the  HHG  exceeding  the  authorized  weight
allowance, with the exception of the POV.  Regarding the POV, we agree
with the JPPSO’s recommendation that the weight of the POV  should  be
excluded from the overall weight of the applicant’s HHG shipment.   It
appears that the  applicant  was  erroneously  advised  that  she  was
authorized the shipment of the POV.  Accordingly,  we  recommend  that
the applicant’s late husband’s records be corrected  to  as  indicated
below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to FORMER SERVICE MEMBER, be corrected to show that competent
authority, in accordance with paragraph U5414-C, Joint Federal  Travel
Regulations, approved transportation of the vehicle that  moved  under
Government Bill of Lading AP-492716 from Virginia Beach, Virginia,  to
Colorado Springs, Colorado; and, that the weight of  the  vehicle  did
not count against the HHG weight allowance.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 11 Oct 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
      Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 May 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, JPPSO/XO, dated 28 Aug 01.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 7 Sep 01.




                                   TERRY A. YONKERS
                                   Panel Chair











AFBCMR 01-01537




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 that competent
authority, in accordance with paragraph U5414-C, Joint Federal Travel
Regulations, approved transportation of the vehicle that moved under
Government Bill of Lading AP-492716 from Virginia Beach, Virginia, to
Colorado Springs, Colorado; and, that the weight of the vehicle did
not count against the HHG weight allowance.







    JOE G. LINEBERGER

    Director

    Air Force Review Boards Agency