RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00430
INDEX CODE: 128.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reimbursed in the amount of $1,245 for the shipment of his privately
owned vehicle (POV) in conjunction with his permanent change of station
(PCS) from Goodfellow AFB, TX to Elmendorf AFB, AK in October 2002.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The Goodfellow AFB Travel Management Office (TMO) advised him that he was
entitled to ship one vehicle at the expense of the government and his
options were to drive his POV up the Alcan Highway or take the ferry. He
was never told that he could ship his POV unaccompanied. He decided to
take the ferry; however, when he contacted the ferry company, he was told
the earliest date he could arrive in Alaska was 6 November 2002. Since his
report-not-later-than date (RNLTD) was 21 October 2002, he decided to ship
his vehicle separately while he flew to Alaska. The ferry company gave him
phone numbers to three different barge companies and he made arrangements
to ship his POV from Seattle, WA to Anchorage, AK. He had airline tickets
to fly from Los Angeles, CA to Anchorage, AK, so his mother drove the POV
to the port in Seattle, WA. His mother encountered some difficulties at
the port because she did not have a government bill of lading (GBL). She
convinced the barge company to ship the POV by stating they would be able
to pick up the GBL upon delivery to the applicant. After his mother
informed him of the difficulties, he contacted the Elmendorf TMO and was
ultimately advised he would not be reimbursed for the shipment of his POV.
He at no time attempted to take advantage of the system or do anything
incorrectly. Had the POV shipping process been thoroughly explained to
him, he would have followed the correct procedures and used the government-
approved shipping company.
In support of his application, the applicant submits a personnel statement;
copies of his PCS order, a Bill of Lading, a paid shipment invoice, an E-
mail to his commander with the three barge company phone numbers; and a
letter informing his commander of the sequence of events concerning the
shipment of his POV. The applicant’s complete submission, with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
According to the military personnel data system (MilPDS), the applicant
enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 April 2002 at the age of 25 in the
grade of airman first class (E-2). The applicant’s current date of
separation is 1 April 2006.
By orders, dated 16 September 2002, the applicant made a PCS move from
Goodfellow AFB, TX to Elmendorf AFB, AK in October 2002. He paid $1,245.43
to ship his POV from Seattle, WA to Haines, AK at personal expense.
The remaining 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 at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
JPPSO-SAT/ECAF recommends denial of the applicant’s request. ECAF states
the applicant’s decision to ship his POV at personal expense was not based
on erroneous advice from transportation personnel.
In accordance with paragraph U5410-A of the Joint Federal Travel Regulation
(JFTR), 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) or a POV port/VPC
serving the passenger port of debarkations (POD) or any POV port/VPC in
between the old and new PDS to the POV unloading port/VPC servicing the new
PDS at no cost to the service member. For members making a PCS to Alaska,
the member may ship a POV through the Global POV Contract system, drive a
vehicle over the Alcan Highway, or take a vehicle on the Alaska Marine
Highway System (AMHS) ferry. To drive the ALCAN Highway or take a vehicle
on the AMHS ferry, members must have a reservation prior to departing the
old PDS. The TMO or member calls the AMHS reservations office in Seattle,
WA for rates, schedules and booking information. After confirmation, AMHS
will fax to the TMO the confirmation number; a list of all charges, to
include the cost for the vehicle, travel cost for the member and command-
sponsored dependents, if applicable; scheduled departure date and time; and
arrival date and time in Alaska.
For members departing Goodfellow AFB who wish to take a vehicle on the AMHS
ferry, the member calls the AMHS office direct to obtain a reservation.
When the TMO office receives the confirmation number and booking, the
information is provided to the member to take to finance to obtain an
advance operating allowance to cover the cost of the ferry.
The applicant’s statement that when he called the ferry company he was
informed the earliest he could arrive in Alaska via the ferry would be 6
November 2002 is not supported by the facts. On 26 September 2002, the
applicant departed Goodfellow AFB on leave with a RNLTD to Elmendorf AFB of
21 October 2002. During this period, AMHS ferry had sailing dates
departing the Seattle, WA area and arriving in Haines, AK the port of
discharge, on the following dates:
Departing 27 Sep 02 arriving 30 Sep 02
Departing 04 Oct 02 arriving 07 Oct 02
Departing 11 Oct 02 arriving 14 Oct 02
Departing 18 Oct 02 arriving 21 Oct 02
Members who wish to transport a vehicle via the AMHS ferry must have the
authorization included in their PCS orders. The applicant’s orders do not
contain the authorization to transport a POV via the AMHS ferry. Members
must obtain reservations for the ferry prior to departing their origin
base. The applicant did not obtain reservations prior to departing
Goodfellow AFB. When members wish to travel via ferry, they are not
authorized airline tickets for air travel. The applicant was issued
airline tickets prior to departing his origin base. The TMO at Goodfellow
AFB states the applicant discussed travel by POV via the AMHS ferry with
them but decided against it and requested an airline ticket. On 23
September 2002, they issued airline tickets for the applicant to travel
from Los Angeles, CA, his leave address, to Anchorage, AK on 21 October
2002. At the time he departed his origin base, it is clear to ECAF that he
did not intend to travel to Alaska via the AMHS ferry. The applicant
requested and received airline tickets; therefore, he was not entitled to
surface transportation via the ferry. The JPPSO-SAT/ECAF evaluation is at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25
April 2003 for review and comment (Exhibits D). As of this date, this
office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 reviewing the evidence of
record, the Board is not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim
of an error or injustice. The applicant’s PCS orders did not authorize
transportation of his POV via the AMHS ferry. In addition, the applicant
was issued and accepted an airline ticket prior to departing his origin
base. Had he indicated he wished to ship his POV via the AMHS ferry, he
would have had to have a reservation prior to departing his origin base,
accompany his POV, and he would not have been issued an airline ticket.
The applicant asserts that the POV shipping process had not been thoroughly
explained to him. However, other than his own assertions, he has provided
no evidence that would lead us to believe the TMO counselor provided
misleading or inaccurate information. In this regard, 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.
Therefore, 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 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 18 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Member
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00430
was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 21 Jan 03.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, JPPSO-SAT/ECAF, dated 16 Apr 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 03.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00952
The applicant shipped his POV through the Orlando, FL, VPC and was charged $424.00, the difference in shipping cost between the authorized port and the alternate port. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03398
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03398 INDEX CODE: 128.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The transportation charges in the amount of $3,802.36 to ship his automobile from Australia to Maxwell Air Force Base (AFB), Alabama, be waived. ECAF states that the applicant exhausted his POV...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03475
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: PPA/ECAF recommends approval. Incident to the PCS, the applicant effected a shipment of HHG at government expense, and personally arranged to ship his motorcycle to the Philippines. However, the motorcycle qualifies as HHG and he was authorized to ship it to the Philippines as HHG.
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...
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...
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...
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02418
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02418 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be authorized expenses in the amount of $4,750.00 to fly back to Orlando, Florida to claim his privately owned vehicle (POV). However, to correct the error in initially authorizing a POV shipment, they recommend the applicants records be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000393
Under the JFTR, reimbursement of personally-procured POV shipment cost is not authorized. Therefore, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant's record to show he was authorized reimbursement of his personally-procured transportation of his POV and entitlement to reimbursement equal to the normal Governmental cost of shipping or the actual shipping cost, whichever is less, from California to Hawaii. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02111
He did not ship a vehicle at government expense using his orders, as was his entitlement. He used the same company to ship his POV that the government uses to transport motor vehicles from Honolulu to Los Angeles; however, he paid less than the government contract would have cost. He elected to pay $948 to ship his POV from Honolulu, HI, to Los Angeles, CA, at personal expense.