RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01643

    XXXXXXX            COUNSEL:  NONE

    XXXXXXX                  HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His indebtedness to the government as a result of the excess weight  of  his
household goods (HHG) shipment be eliminated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The current debt against him for this move should  be  removed.  On  the  DD
Form 619-1, there is no documentation about ever being overweight  prior  to
getting to XXXXXXX, Wyoming.  As he had stated  in  a  previous  appeal,  he
would have jumped on the chance to move items himself for a cost  much  less
than the contractors move.  The only time there was a reweigh  was  here  in
XXXXXXX, WY after the fact. Referring to his letter to  Congressman  Porter,
$1600.60 is a lot of money for him, however, in almost  17  years,  this  is
the first time he had  ever  been  charged  on  a  required  military  move.
Again, if he had known prior to leaving McChord that it was  overweight,  he
would have taken the weight on a rented  trailer.  If  all  his  appeal  and
rebuttal letters could be read, that will help in the case he is  trying  to
make.

In support of his request applicant provided DD Form  619-1,  Standard  Form
1203, Appeal-Indebtedness Letter, Notification of Indebtedness, Excess  Cost
Rebuttal  Adjudication,  Permanent  Change  of  Station  Orders  (PCS),  and
Correspondence from Senator Porter of Nevada.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air  Force  in  the  grade  of
technical sergeant.

Per Special Order AA-713, dated 8 August 2001,  the  applicant  made  a  PCS
move from McChord AFB WA to FE  Warren  AFB  WY.   He  made  a  shipment  of
Household Goods (HHG) in conjunction with  his  assignment.   The  move  was
under Government Bill of Lading (GBL) JP-123595.  The  original  net  weight
of the shipment was 12,660 pounds.  A  reweigh  at  destination  produced  a
lower net  weight  of  12,640.   The  applicant  was  billed  $1,600.60  for
exceeding the authorized weight allowance of 9,000 pounds.

______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ECAF recommends  denial  and  states  the  applicant  did  not  provide  any
evidence to support a probable error or an injustice.  He was authorized  to
ship a maximum of 9,000 pounds of HHG at government expense.   His  shipment
had a new weight of 12,640 pounds.  He did not state he was unaware  of  the
authorized weight allowance. In accordance with paragraph U5340-A JFTR,  the
member is financially responsible for all transportation costs arising  from
the transportation of HHG in excess of the authorized allowance.

As prescribed in paragraph U5310-B, JFTR, members in the grade of  E-5  (the
grade the  applicant  held  on  the  effective  date  of  his  orders)  with
dependents are authorized to ship a  maximum  of  9,000  pounds  of  HHG  at
Government expense. The applicant incurred excess cost charges by  effecting
a shipment of HHG with a net  weight  of  12,640  pounds;  he  received  the
benefit of lower reweigh at destination.

The applicant’s statement that there  was  no  indication  of  his  shipment
being overweight at the time of the move is  without  merit.   Carriers  are
required  to  provide  the  origin  traffic  management  office  (TMO)  with
certified weight tickets at the  time  of  pickup  of  the  shipment.   This
information is available to the member at both the  origin  and  destination
TMOs.  The nature of a shipment of HHG is such that charges are  established
at the time services are performed.  Once  a  shipment  of  HHG  is  packed,
inventoried, loaded on the van, and drayed to the  scales,  the  member  has
incurred excess cost charges at that point for any weight in excess  of  the
authorized weight allowance.

ECAF 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  25
June 2004 for review and comment within 30 days.   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 an  error  or  injustice.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record and the applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not  persuaded
that relief of  his  indebtedness  to  the  government  is  warranted.   His
contentions are duly noted; however,  the  indebtedness  he  incurred  is  a
result of him exceeding  his  maximum  allowed  weight  allowance  of  9,000
pounds. We note that carriers are required to  provide  TMO  with  certified
weight tickets at the time of pickup of the shipment  and  this  information
is available to  the  member  at  both  the  origin  and  destination  TMOs.
Therefore, 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.  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 probable 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-2004-01643
in Executive Session on 14 September 2004, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
                  Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
                  Mr. John H. Hennessey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 May 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ECAF, dated 16 Jun 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 25 Jun 04.
    .




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair