RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03906
INDEX NUMBER: 128.10
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be allowed credit for the shipment of professional books, papers,
and equipment (PBP&E) in the shipment of his household goods (HHGs)
during a permanent change of station (PCS) move under Special Order A-
367, dated 14 Feb 01.
He be refunded the entire amount taken from his pay toward his
indebtedness for shipment of excess HHGs.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The shipper of his HHGs did not properly annotate his PBP&E on the
Government Bill of Lading (GBL).
His local Traffic Management Office did not question that there was
not an annotation in Block 28 of the GBL, PBP&E.
He failed to notice that there was no PBP&E annotated on his
inventory and accidentally signed for delivery of his HHGs.
His original estimate of HHGs to be shipped indicated 1000 pounds of
PBP&E.
His previous moves contained PBP&E weighing between 1000 and 2,230
pounds.
The overall evidence in his case supports that it was an
administrative oversight on his part causing no PBP&E to be included
in his shipment.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a major serving on active duty. He made a PCS move
under Special Order A-367, dated 14 Feb 01. The applicant’s
authorized weight limit for shipment of household goods is 14,500
pounds. The household goods he shipped were determined to have a net
weight of 18,140 pounds. The applicant incurred a debt for shipment
of excess household goods in the amount of $1,859.69, which was
reduced to $1,554.48.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
JPPSO/ECAF recommends denial of the applicant’s request. Because so
many members who exceed their authorized weight allowance attempt to
eliminate the charge by claiming PBP&E after the fact, after-the-fact
declaration of PBP&E is prohibited by regulation. Per paragraph
2.1.4.2.5 of the Joint Federal Travel Regulation, Volume I, after the
fact declaration of PBP&E can only be accepted when a review of the
member’s case file contains documented intent to declare PBP&E. This
includes the requirement the PBP&E was separately identified, marked,
and inventoried during the move in question. When a member declares
PBP&E and the carrier fails to record and weigh the items, credit may
be given if the traffic management office (TMO) documents the items
and weight upon delivery.
Review of the applicant’s HHG inventory and other shipping documents
reveal that no items were identified as PBP&E during the shipment in
question. At no time while the HHGs were in storage did the
applicant attempt to correct the situation by identifying PBP&E.
Only after the overweight charges were identified, more than a year
after the property was delivered, did the applicant go to the TMO to
identify PBP&E items. It is impractical to identify PBP&E items from
the inventory. It appears they took the inventory and marked the
majority of items listed as books or clothing as PBP&E. Usually the
majority of books and clothing in a shipment are personal items
rather than PBP&E.
The complete 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
30 Jan 04 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. 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 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 Docket Number BC-2003-
03906 in Executive Session on 1 April 2004, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Oct 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, JPPSO/ECAF, dated 22 Jan 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jan 04.
ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02023
Since the letter was provided more than six months following the delivery of the shipment, ECAF contacted the carrier, only to discover that the carrier representative who signed the statement was not familiar with the shipment and that she, at the applicant’s request, identified items of PBP&E on the inventory per his request. In this case, reviews of the inventories reveal there were no items identified as PBP&E during the move. Following receipt of ECAF’s 14 May 2004 letter, he...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01823
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01823 INDEX CODE: 128.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The excess unaccompanied baggage (UB) costs for shipment of his household goods (HHG) be corrected to eliminate costs of professional books, papers, and equipment (PBP&E) and the remaining excess costs...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01577
________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The HHG shipment of his PBP&E was not annotated properly on his Descriptive Inventories Sheet, dated 6 Jun 07. JPPA-ECAFs adjudication section reviewed the case file and determined the debt was correct, advising that previous or subsequent shipment weights could not be used in determining the excess cost for the shipment in question. The applicant is requesting the 22 items in his HHG...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00425
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes the record to be unjust because he was unable to insure the movers on the day of the shipment correctly annotated PBP&E on the appropriate shipping documents. It is also unreasonable to believe that a colonel with 24 years of service at the time of PCS and 11 prior PCS moves would not have any PBP&E to ship. LAURENCE M. GRONER Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-00425 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02860
The shipment had a net weight of 19,220 pounds. Regulations require that PBP&E be separately packed, marked, and identified as such on the shipping documents in order to receive credit. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
The shipment had an origin net weight of 16,345 pounds. According to JPPSO, the applicant did not provide any information to support an error or injustice by transportation personnel that increased the weight of his HHG. At origin, the shipment had a net weight of 16,370 pounds.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). He states that at the time of shipment he estimated he had 10 pounds of PBP&E. Should the board decide to grant the relief sought, the records may be changed to state the household goods shipment that moved under Government Bill of Lading VP-486,927 dated 9 Nov 95, contained 975 pounds of professional books, papers, and equipment.
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...