RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02111
INDEX CODE: 128.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reimbursed in the amount of $948 for the shipment of his privately
owned vehicle (POV) in conjunction with his retirement from Honolulu,
Hawaii to Los Angeles, CA.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Under his retirement orders, he and his wife departed Honolulu, HI, on 26
March 2004. They owned two POVs and intended to ship them both from
Hawaii. At their own expense, they shipped one vehicle on 9 March 2004.
The early shipment ensured they had a vehicle waiting for them at the port
in Los Angeles so they could drive to their destination in Utah. He
arranged to ship his second vehicle through the Travel Management Office
(TMO) at Hickam AFB, HI, at government expense on or about 26 March 2004.
The delayed shipment allowed them to avoid the expense of a rental car for
their transportation before departing Honolulu. However, they accepted an
offer to sell their second vehicle a few days prior to their departure.
He did not ship a vehicle at government expense using his orders, as was
his entitlement. He used the same company to ship his POV that the
government uses to transport motor vehicles from Honolulu to Los Angeles;
however, he paid less than the government contract would have cost. He
believes the government should reimburse him for the shipment of the first
vehicle since he did not ship the second vehicle.
In support of his application, the applicant submits a copy of his
retirement order, his spouse’s travel order, and a copy of the Bill of
Lading for shipment of his privately owned vehicle from Honolulu, HI, to
Los Angeles, CA. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is
at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
According to the applicant’s retirement order, he was released from active
duty on 29 February 2004 and retired effective 1 March 2004 in the grade of
lieutenant colonel. He served 23 years, 8 months, and 10 days on active
duty.
Per Special Orders AC-002996, dated 23 December 2003 and AR-094, dated 3
February 2004, the applicant moved from Waipahu, HI, to Highland, UT, in
conjunction with his retirement. He elected to pay $948 to ship his POV
from Honolulu, HI, to Los Angeles, CA, at personal expense.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
JPPSO-SAT/ECAF recommends denial of the applicant’s request. It is ECAF’s
opinion that the applicant does not meet the burden of establishing he is
the victim of an error or injustice caused by either a representative of
the government or a government entity. ECAF states that the applicant, at
his own discretion, elected to ship his vehicle at personal expense because
he wanted to reserve the entitlement to ship a second vehicle at a later
date. He made the appropriate arrangements to ship the vehicle through the
Traffic Management Office at government expense; however, prior to the
shipment date, he sold the vehicle and cancelled the shipment. Members are
not reimbursed for entitlements they elect not to use. The JPPSO-SAT/ECAF
advisory is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant’s spouse responded through their congressional member that
the Air Force’s recommendation to deny their appeal makes no sense because
to reimburse them would cost the government less than had they paid for the
authorized shipment of their vehicle. They feel their claim is a fair and
reasonable request. The applicant’s rebuttal is at 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 probable error or injustice. After reviewing the evidence of
record, the Board is not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim
of an error or injustice. The applicant has provided no evidence that
would lead us to believe that he was not given the opportunity to ship a
POV at government expense in connection with his retirement; or, that the
TMO counselor provided misleading or inaccurate information regarding his
entitlement. In this regard, 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 this application in Executive
Session on 16 November 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2004-02111:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Jun 04, with attachments.
Exhibit B. Letter, JPPSO-SAT/ECAF, dated 31 Aug 04.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Sep 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, Senator Domenici, dtd 8 Oct 04, w/atch.
MARILYN M. THOMAS
Vice Chair
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...
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 | 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-2003-00761
Flag carrier service is not available must be provided to the member and must be attached to the request for reimbursement. As to the applicant’s request for reimbursement for the mileage of this vehicle, we concur with the JPPSO-SAT/ECAF assessment and are of the opinion that the applicant should be reimbursed for the mileage to get the vehicle to the POV port or vehicle processing center serving the old permanent duty station, since it appears that he would have been entitled to...
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 | 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...
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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-00760
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 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. However, other than his own assertions, he has provided no evidence substantiating his claims.
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02292
The applicant states he was reimbursed fully for his move from Seymour Johnson to his home of record, but not for his move from his home of record to the Academy. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AF/DPDFP recommends the applicant be reimbursed a total of $82.15 for the shipment of items from his home of record to the Academy. However, the Board agrees with the recommendation by HQ AF/DPDFP to reimburse the applicant in the amount of...