RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02335
            INDEX CODE:  128.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES



_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her delivery of household goods (HHG) and partial delivery be changed.
 Specifically, she requests reimbursement of the $98.12  she  paid  to
the commercial carrier for  additional  services  during  the  partial
delivery of her HHG and reimbursement of the  $1,023.43  she  paid  to
have her HHG reshipped from New York to Georgia.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She paid a one-time access charge of $98.12 on 15 January 2003.   Paid
a delivery charge of $1,023.43 on 25 June 2003, prior to access of her
HHG.

In support of her request, the applicant submits copies of her DD Form
214, a personal letter, dated 25 June 2003, with money order receipts,
and additional documents associated  with  the  issues  cited  in  her
contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission,  with  attachments,
is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
reveals the applicant’s Total Active Federal Commissioned Service Date
(TAFCSD) as 4 January 2000.

The applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-
3207 (non-selection, permanent promotion) on 22 October 2002.  She had
completed a total of 2 years, 9 months and 19 days of  active  service
and was serving in the grade of second lieutenant (O1) at the time  of
separation.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

JPPSO-ECAF recommends the application be denied.  ECAF states that the
applicant was entitled to ship her household goods  (HHG)  from  Idaho
(ID) [her last duty station] to Far Rockaway, NY, her home  of  record
(HOR) or Syracuse, NY, her place of entry on active duty (PLEAD).   On
6 December 2002, the applicant requested  shipment  of  her  HHG  from
Mountain Home  ID  to  Far  Rockaway  NY.   The  shipment  arrived  at
destination on 6 January 2003 and was placed  in  storage  in  transit
(SIT) for 90 days  (expiration  date  of  5  April  2003).   While  in
temporary storage, the applicant requested a partial delivery  of  her
HHG.  When the goods arrived, she changed her mind and requested  that
she be allowed to open some of the boxes, removed some items, have the
boxes resealed and returned to storage.  She had to sign  a  statement
from the moving company that there would  be  additional  charges  for
this service in the amount of $343.42.  At the end of the  initial  90
days of storage, she was unable to take delivery of her goods  due  to
nonavailability of  suitable  housing;  therefore,  she  requested  an
additional 90 days of SIT, which was  approved  and  the  storage  was
extended to 4 July 2003.  The applicant made  several  inquiries  with
the delivery company about reshipping her HHG to Duluth, GA,  and  was
informed her HHG could be delivered from storage to GA, but she  would
be required to pay for the mileage beyond a  local  delivery,  in  the
amount of $1,023.43.

ECAF states that a member is authorized  one  partial  withdrawal  and
delivery of HHG from temporary storage.  The  member  must  provide  a
list of the inventory item numbers to  be  withdrawn.   The  applicant
made the list; however, she changed her  mind  after  the  items  were
delivered to her residence and decided she did not  want  all  of  the
requested items and  that  the  boxes  be  resealed  and  returned  to
storage.  As this service is not authorized at Government expense, the
applicant contracted directly with the carrier for this service in the
amount of $343.42.  After several months of difficulty  in  trying  to
collect the  fees,  the  company  agreed  to  waive  the  charges  for
repackaging and returning the items to storage and reduced the charges
for labor only.  On 19 May 2003, the company received the  payment  of
$98.12.  At the applicant’s request, her HHG were shipped  from  Idaho
to New York.  While in temporary storage in New  York,  she  requested
they be reshipped to Georgia.  As reshipment of the HHG to Georgia  at
Government expense was not authorized, she was  advised  of  the  cost
($1,023.43) and she sent two money orders to the transportation office
requesting her HHG be delivered to Georgia.

ECAF indicates that  the  applicant  does  not  state  what  error  or
injustice occurred in the shipment of her HHG.  In reviewing her  case
file, she received all services  to  which  she  was  entitled  to  at
Government expense.  The JPPSO-ECAF evaluation, with  attachments,  is
at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  15
August 2003 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.
However, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed  as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed  to  sustain
her burden that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.   In
view of the above and absent evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.
application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 25 September 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
                  Mr. James E. Short, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-02335.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jul 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, JPPSO-ECAF, dated 6 Aug 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Aug 03.




                                   ROBERT S. BOYD
                                   Panel Chair