RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01449
INDEX NUMBER: 128.10
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The charges he has incurred for overweight shipment of household goods
be voided.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He shipped his household goods from Mountain Home, Idaho to Alamogordo,
New Mexico, although he was entitled to ship them to Dracut,
Massachusetts, which is a much greater distance. This saved the Air
Force a lot of money.
His household goods were handled and weighed by three different
companies and the weight of his household goods was different each
time. The last two weights were both much higher than the initial
weight he was given. Additionally, he had numerous items broken and
water damaged. He believes that the overweight charges are due to the
incompetence of the Traffic Management Office at Mountain Homes AFB.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
evaluation prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force found at
Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
JPPSO/CC recommends that the applicant’s records be changed to state
the total excess cost charges due for the household goods placed in
temporary storage, line haul charges from Mountain Home, Idaho to
Alamogordo, New Mexico, and return of the incentive payment he received
for a Do-It-Yourself (DITY) move, a total of $3,127.50.
The Excess Cost Adjudication Function (ECAF) reviewed the applicant’s
case and determined that the applicant had shipped and stored personal
property in excess of the prescribed weight allowance. After granting
the applicant 190 pounds for irreparably damaged items and a weight
reduction of 1378 pounds for packing materials, his proportionate share
of the line haul cost was determined to be $2,322.78. It was
determined that the applicant’s share of the cost for excess weight in
storage was $491.94. The applicant also moved 1450 pounds of household
goods under the DITY program and received an incentive payment of
$1,107.51. Since the applicant exceeded his weight entitlement on the
goods moved by the government, the incentive payment had to be
recouped. The applicant was given credit of $100.17 for amounts
previously paid leaving a total indebtedness of $3,822.06.
The excess cost incurred by the applicant was due to his exceeding his
weight allowance. The distance of the shipment was not a factor. He
is not entitled to an increase in weight allowance based on his
decision to ship his household goods a shorter distance.
Regarding the three different weights of his household goods, the
Comptroller General has ruled in similar cases that evidence of the
weight of household effects when placed in nontemporary storage is not
determinative of the member’s liability because a higher weight when
the goods are taken out of storage may be due to several factors,
including the use of different scales, the use of storage material
which is not removed before shipping, and moisture absorption while in
storage. The Comptroller General concludes that the probability that
there was an error in the weight certificate for the goods when
delivered to storage is equal to the probability that an error occurred
in the weight of the goods when shipped to the requested destination.
The applicant received a weight credit for those items that were
irreparably damaged or lost. Weight credit does not apply to any item
for which the member receives the cost of repairs.
Regarding the applicant’s household goods being placed in storage in
transit after they were released from nontemporary storage, the TMO
realized that the applicant owed storage charges because his shipment
was overweight. Since he was no longer in a pay status, they put the
shipment in temporary storage to collect the excess cost charges prior
to shipping the property to the requested destination.
Since temporary storage is not normally authorized in conjunction with
household goods being transported from nontemporary storage on
separation orders, the storage in transit should not have been
authorized. For this reason, they think the applicant’s excess cost
charges should be reduced by $694.56, the amount associated with the
temporary storage.
The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21
Jun 02 for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has
not been received.
________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. The Board agrees with the opinion and
recommendation of JPPSO/CC to not charge the applicant the cost of
placing his household goods in temporary storage. Additionally, the
Board believes the applicant should receive the benefit of the doubt
regarding the weight of his household goods and be assessed costs based
on the original lower net weight of 11,160 pounds rather than 13,780
obtained during the reweigh of his household goods. This results in
the applicant owing a total of $2,484.40, which reflects costs of
$491.94 for excess nontemporary storage charges, repayment of $1,107.51
incentive payment received for a DITY move, and $884.95 for shipment of
excess weight totaling 2,060 pounds. Giving the applicant credit for
$100.17 previously paid leaves a balance of $2,384.23. While this does
not provide the applicant the total relief he seeks, the Board believes
it provides a fair assessment of the charges owed by the applicant.
Therefore, we recommend that the applicant’s 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 total excess cost
charges for household goods shipped under Special Order A-306, dated 9
December 1999 is $2,484.40 ($884.95 for excess weight, $491.94 for
excess nontemporary storage charges, and $1,107.51 overpayment for a
DITY move).
_______________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-01449 in
Executive Session on 21 August 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Panel Chair
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Nov 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, JPPSO/CC, dated 13 Jun 02,
w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 21 Jun 02.
LAWRENCE R. LEEHY
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 02-01449
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 XXXXXXXx, XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected to show that
the total excess cost charges for household goods shipped under
Special Order A-306, dated 9 December 1999 is $2,484.40 ($884.95
for excess weight, $491.94 for excess nontemporary storage charges,
and $1,107.51 overpayment for a DITY move).
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02466
Applicant’s HHGs have been in storage since May 95. However, the Air Force paid the fees associated with this error for over two years. Subsequently, the applicant was placed on notice the responsibility for payment of storage fees on his household goods was his.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01035a
He made two shipments of personal property from Korea to San Antonio, TX. Considering the weight credits for packing materials and professional books, papers, and equipment, he exceeded the prescribed weight allowance for his grade by 450 pounds, incurring the excess cost charge of $409.99. He now requests relief of the portion of his debt resulting from exceeding his maximum weight allowance.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01947
DD Form 2278, Application for DITY Move and Counseling Checklist, dated 9 Dec 05, indicates the applicant advised the transportation office at Pope AFB he had an estimated weight of 500 pounds to ship to Eielson AFB, AK. Since transportation personnel are without authority to authorize a member to ship more weight than what is authorized by regulations, it is doubtful they would advise the applicant he could transport the excess weight himself and be reimbursed for doing so. We noted the...
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 | CY1999 | BC-1996-02029
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. 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...
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. 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...
In support of the appeal, applicant submits AF Form 899, Request and Authorization for Permanent Change of Station - Military; Request and Authorization for Change of Administrative Orders; Application for Shipment and/or Storage of Personal Property; letter, ECAF- B, dated 23 May 96; Government Bill of Lading; Pay Adjustment Authorization; Applicant’s letter, dated 19 Dec 98; and letter, ECAF, dated 9 Feb 99. The Board notes that at the time of his PCS, the applicant was an E-3, had...
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010566
The applicant provides, in support of his application, copies of his PCS Orders; DA Form 31 (Request and Authority for Leave), dated 3 May 2006; DD Form 2278 (Application for DITY and Counseling Checklist); FHT Form 55-X25 (DITY Information Data Sheet); Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) Travel Voucher, dated 12 May 2006, with a copy of his DD Form 1351-2 (Travel Voucher or Subvoucher), dated 11 May 2006; DFAS Travel Voucher, dated 11 May 2009; DITY Checklist and Certification of...