RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02632
            INDEX NUMBER:  128.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX     COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His indebtedness to the  government  in  the  amount  of  $1207.24  for
shipment of excess household goods (HHGs) be canceled.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He pointed out to the Traffic Management Office (TMO) at Scott AFB  and
McGuire AFB that there were errors in the execution of  his  move  from
Scott AFB to McGuire AFB.  He asked for an inspector and a  reweigh  of
his HHGs at both locations, but did not receive either.  His request to
weigh the packing material when he arrived at McGuire AFB was also  not
honored.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant made a permanent change of station (PCS) move from  Scott
AFB to McGuire AFB under Special Order ----,  dated      30  May  2000,
while serving in the grade of major (O-4).  He made three shipments  of
personal property in conjunction with his move with  a  net  weight  of
22,460 pounds (lbs).  The applicant received  credit  for  520  lbs  of
professional books, papers, and equipment,  leaving  a  net  weight  of
21,940 lbs.  He was then given  a  10%  credit  for  packing  material,
leaving a total shipped  weight  of  19,746  lbs.   The  applicant  was
authorized 17,000 lbs under the Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR),
resulting in net excess weight shipped of 2,746 lbs.  A total of 11.11%
packing was added resulting in total excess  weight  shipped  of  3,051
lbs.  This resulted in excess cost  charges  of  $1,315.74.   Based  on
claims  documentation,  the  applicant  was  credited  with  a   weight
reduction of 905 lbs for lost and irreparably  damaged  items,  thereby
reducing his excess cost charges to $1,207.24.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

JPPSO/ECAF recommends denial of the applicant’s request to expunge  the
excess cost charges associated with his PCS move.

The applicant states that his  request  for  an  inspector  and  for  a
reweigh of his HHGs was not granted.  Since the shipment  exceeded  the
authorized weight allowance, it would have been  helpful  to  obtain  a
second weighing at destination.  However, reweighs  are  procedural  in
nature and failure to obtain one at  destination  does  not  invalidate
weight tickets previously obtained at origin.  The  applicant  believes
that his shipment was over packed and he desired to  have  the  packing
materials weighed.  The use of the actual weight of  packing  materials
vice the 10% allowance is rarely used.  If this method is used, it must
be used whether the weight of the materials end up being less than that
given in the allowance.  They are aware of no cases  where  the  member
has benefited from using the actual weight method.

The applicant did not provide any evidence  to  show  that  the  weight
tickets were in error.  In support of its transportation vouchers,  the
carrier provided weight tickets signed by a weigh master from the state
of Illinois.  In similar cases, the Comptroller General has  held  that
where the transportation voucher prepared by a mover in support of  its
charges is supported by a valid weight certificate or  weight  tickets,
in the absence  of  fraud  or  clear  error  in  the  computation,  the
Government must rely on the scale certifications of record in computing
the member’s excess costs.

The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation,  the  applicant  indicates
that JPPSO/ECAF missed  the  point  of  his  argument.   He  has  never
questioned the accuracy of his net weight.  However, he  believes  that
the only reason the shipment weighed in over his  authorized  limit  is
because of a significant amount of absorbed  water  in  the  boxes  and
furniture pads.  He also believes that the situation  could  have  been
avoided if the TMO had taken appropriate action.  He is confident  that
he did everything he could.

The applicant states that it was raining, often times heavy, the entire
time the carrier was loading his household goods.  Many  of  the  boxes
were left sitting in the driveway waiting for the driver  to  load  the
truck.  He continually  asked  the  loading  team  to  keep  the  boxes
covered, but the wind kept blowing the furniture pads off.  This is one
of the reasons he called and asked the TMO at  Scott  to  send  out  an
inspector.  His furniture was handled similarly to the boxes.  When his
HHGs were delivered, the effect of the water was obvious.  Many of  the
boxes collapsed due to losing their structural integrity from the rain.
 He had $7,225.50 in damages to his HHGs.  This level of damage  should
be an indicator that this was not a normal move.

Because the TMO personnel did not  do  their  job,  he  cannot  provide
documented proof of what effect the water had on the net weight of  his
HHG shipment.  When he spoke with  the  JPPSO/ECAF  representative  and
explained what happened in detail, he was  told  that  if  his  initial
letter had explained  it  the  same  way,  he  would  have  recommended
approval of his request.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

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,  a
majority of the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the
Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopts  their  rationale
as the primary basis for their conclusion that the  applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or  injustice.   The  Board  majority  also
notes the applicant’s contention that after he explained the details of
his move to the JPPSO representative, the representative stated that he
would have recommended approval  of  the  applicant’s  request  if  his
initial  submission  had  contained  the   same   information.    Since
JPPSO/ECAF has not amended their formal recommendation to the Board, it
is still the recommendation of record.  While  it  appears  that  there
were problems during the shipment of the applicant’s household goods, a
majority of the Board was not  persuaded  that  they  resulted  in  the
excess weight for which he was charged.   Additionally,  the  applicant
was  credited  with  a  weight  reduction  of  905  lbs  for  lost  and
irreparably damaged items.  Therefore, in the absence  of  evidence  to
the contrary, a majority of the Board  finds  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of  the  Board  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2003-
02632 in Executive Session on 22 October 2003, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
      Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny applicant’s  request.   Ms.
Willis voted to grant the applicant’s request but  did  not  desire  to
submit a minority  report.   The  following  documentary  evidence  was
considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Aug 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, JPPSO/ECAF, dated 19 Sep 03,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Sep 03.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 3 Oct 03, w/atchs.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair


MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                  FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
(AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency