RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02069
INDEX CODE: 100.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be considered for entitlement to shipment of household goods (HHG)
at the governments expense.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She separated form the regular Air Force on 15 October 1999 as she was
approved for a quick turn Palace Chase assignment with the XXXXX Air
National Guard (XXANG). Due to circumstances beyond her control
(selling her home), she was not able to affect a move at the time of
her separation. On 6 March 2000, she requested her entitlements be
extended a few months to allow her more time to schedule the pickup of
her HHG. Her shipping entitlement was extended to 14 October 2000.
Due to the negligence of her realtor, she was not able to sell her
home. Consequently, she did not use her HHG shipping entitlement
within the allotted time to do so. After filing an official
complaint, she ceased trying to sell the home and still resides there
today.
In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided a personal
statement and copies of her separation paperwork, paperwork on HHG
extension requests, her DD Form 214’s, Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty, the complaint against her realtor, and
several special orders ordering her to annual training duty and
mobilization for Operation Enduring Freedom.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant, a current member of the XXANG, was separated from
active duty on 15 October 1999 under the Palace Chase program. She
was not able to use her HHG shipping entitlement during the allotted
time and requested an extension. Her extension of entitlement was
granted and she was given until 14 October 2000 to use the
entitlement. She did not do so.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
JPPSO-SAT/ECAF recommends denial. JPPSO-SAT/ECAF notes that
entitlement to HHG shipping terminates on the 181st day following
separation from the service unless a written application for HHG is
submitted to the proper authority prior to the 180th day of
eligibility. The extension may be authorized/approved only when
circumstances prevent use within the prescribed time; and must be for
shortest time appropriate under the circumstances; and not be granted
merely to accommodate personal preferences or convenience. JPPSO-
SAT/ECAF notes she was separated on 15 October 1999, her authorization
to travel and shipment of HHG at government expense were to expire 13
April 2000. On 6 March 2000, her entitlements were extended, at her
request, until 14 October 2000. She chose not to ship the HHG during
the extended period.
JPPSO-SAT/ECAF’s 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 6
August 2004 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date,
no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
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. It appears she asked for and was granted an
extention to her eligibility to ship her HHG’s; however, she did not
exercise her right within the allotted time frame. 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-
2004-02069 in Executive Session on 28 September 2004, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Jun 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, JPPSO-SAT/ECAF, dated 27 Jul 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 04.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02265
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After retiring in Oct 03, she shipped 1000 pounds of her HHGs to her Home of Record (HOR). On 3 Jul 07, applicant submitted a request for extension of the time limitation for her retirement due to unforeseen circumstances; however JPPSO-SAT/ECAF-B denied her request. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02343
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02343 INDEX CODE: 128.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 6 FEB 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His transportation entitlements be reinstated to allow a final move and shipment of his household goods (HHG). He completed 20 years of active service for retirement. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00665
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00665 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 SEP 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted an extension of his transportation entitlements so that he may relocate from California to Atlanta, Georgia at Government expense. JPPSO states entitlement to household good...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03660
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03660 INDEX CODE: 128.14 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 2 JUNE 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reimbursed for moving his dependents and household goods (HHG) more than a year before he was issued Permanent Change of Station (PCS) orders. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02941
Prior to expiration of her travel and transportation entitlements on 31 Jul 01, she requested an extension of the time limit for educational reasons. Since 31 Jul 01, the applicant’s travel and transportation entitlements have been extended in one-year increments as a member undergoing education or training, and she has been informed the approval did not extend her NTS entitlement beyond 31 Jul 01. She was also informed this was the final extension she would be granted, as there was no...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00123
Additionally, a member's HHG transportation entitlements are based on the amount of weight moved within the authorized weight allowance for his/her grade. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the Joint Personal Property Shipping office's determination that since the applicant elected to move his household goods eight months after his shipment entitlement expired and has provided no evidence to show he meets the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00866
He filed a rebuttal of the charges stating his spouse was also a military member and he wanted to combine her weight allowance with his entitlement. The governing regulation stipulates that when a military member is married to another military member, neither can be counted as being a dependent of the other to increase any allowance (including HHG weight). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-03447
She completed 20 years and 19 days of active service for retirement. Under the provisions of paragraph U5012-I, JFTR, a written time limit extension that includes an explanation of the circumstances justifying the extension may be authorized/approved for a specific additional time period using the Secretarial Process only when circumstances prevented use within the prescribed time; must be for the shortest time appropriate under the circumstances; not be granted merely to accommodate...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02814
The entitlement begins on the date the orders are issued and terminates one year from the date of termination of active duty. However, evidence shows the applicant agreed to have his HHG shipped to Lancaster, CA, upon his separation from active duty and subsequently requested an extension of storage until 23 December 2005. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03809
He shipped HHGs under Government Bill of Lading (GBL) JP-611238 with a net weight of 13,760 pounds. 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 its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...