RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00760
INDEX CODE: 128.02
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The excess costs associated with the shipment of his truck be
waived and he be reimbursed for payments made based on authority in
DFAS-DEM 7073-1.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
On 16 Sep 03, he received a DD Form 139, Pay Adjustment
Authorization, charging him $1256.45 for excess costs incurred for
the shipment of his vehicle to XXXXX. The Joint Personal Property
Shipping Office (JPPSO) refuted his rebuttal by quoting the Joint
Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR) and placing the entire blame on
him, totally ignoring the misinformation given by their port
employees.
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted supporting documents
associated with his claim to JPPSO.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
captain.
Applicant made a permanent change of station (PCS) move from XXXX,
to XXXX, per Special Order AD-1215, dated 14 May 03. In
conjunction with his PCS, he shipped an over-sized privately-owned-
vehicle (POV) from the CONUS to XXXX. Because the vehicle exceeded
the authorized size of 20 measurement tons, his vehicle measured at
23.25 measurement tons, he was billed $1256.45 in excess cost
charges for the oversized vehicle.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ JPPSO/ECAF recommended denial of the application. In accordance
with para U5405, JFTR, transportation of a POV for the member’s or
dependents’ personal use may be authorized for a member when
ordered to make a PCS to, from, or between OCONUS locations. 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.
Unless an oversized vehicle is required by the member or dependents
for medical reasons, and approval is obtained through the
Secretarial Process, vehicles shipped at government expense to,
from, and between overseas locations are limited to 20 measurement
tons.
Applicant incurred excess cost charges by shipping a vehicle
measuring 23.25 measurement tons. He is liable for the excess
transportation charges. Additionally, applicant’s spouse was
advised of the excess charges at the time the vehicle was turned in
for shipment.
A complete copy of the 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 14 May 04 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
___________________________________________________________________
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. After a thorough
review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are
not persuaded that his uncorroborated assertions, in and by
themselves, are sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale
expressed by the Joint Personal Property Shipping Office. The
applicant asserts that he was misinformed by JPPSO port employees.
However, other than his own assertions, he has provided no evidence
substantiating his claims. Additionally, the applicant’s spouse
was advised there would be excess shipping charges at the time the
vehicle in question was turned in for shipment. We therefore agree
with the opinion and recommendation provided by JPPSO 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 AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2004-00760 in Executive Session on 8 July 2004, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
Mr. Robert H. Altman, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Feb 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, JPPSO/ECAF, dated 3 May 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 May 04.
GREGORY H. PETKOFF
Panel Chair
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 | 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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-00430
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. 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. 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...
He has a large family and would like to be treated like any other Air Force member who ships their vehicle overseas. The applicant shipped his POV from England to the United States. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that competent authority approved his request submitted under the provisions of Paragraph U5415-C of the...
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 | 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.
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 | 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015994
If he had not received counseling by that Army official he would not have shipped his POV at his own expense. A review of the available evidence fails to reveal any evidence showing that the applicant was misinformed by Army officials regarding shipment of his POV. The applicant is not authorized reimbursement for shipment of his POV within the CONUS.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01077
Since the applicant’s POV did not meet the standards for operations in New Zealand without major modifications, he was entitled to ship the vehicle from his assignment at the time to the CONUS for storage. His private owned vehicle (POV) was erroneously shipped from Japan to New Zealand under the authority of Special Order AA- 1299, dated 7 Aug 03, and is authorized to be reshipped from New Zealand to the appropriate vehicle processing center for storage under the provisions of the Joint...