RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02466
            INDEX NUMBER:  128.10
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The debt he has accumulated for overweight shipment  and  nontemporary
storage of household goods (HHGs) be cancelled  and  his  nontemporary
goods be sent to him at his new address.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he retired at Fairchild Air Force Base in Washington in 1991,  he
was told he could make a shipment to his new location in Illinois  and
also put household goods in nontemporary storage, which  he  did.   In
Oct 03, he requested his HHGs be  shipped  to  him  from  nontemporary
storage.  At this time, he found out there was a problem such  as  the
following:

        a.  His HHGs in nontemporary storage  exceeded  his  allowable
weight limit.

        b.  He should  never  have  been  allowed  to  place  HHGs  in
nontemporary storage.

        c.  His file was sent to the Excess Cost Adjudication Function
(ECAF) and he has never received a reply.

        d.  He was advised by an official from the traffic  management
office (TMO) he was in arrears on the storage of his HHGs  and  needed
to send a payment of $69.12 per month.  He  sent  a  money  order  for
$200.00 and stated to them the payments would  be  taken  out  of  his
retirement pay and to advise him if they did not receive payment.

        e.  He  was  never  contacted  his  payments  were  not  being
received and assumed they were.

        f.  According to the TMO official, the Air Force paid his fees
quarterly from 31 May 95 to Dec 97.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant retired from the Air Force in  the  grade  of  technical
sergeant (TSgt) (E-6) effective 1 Sep 91 with 21 years, 1  month,  and
15 days of active service.  As a TSgt, the  applicant  was  authorized
shipment of 11,000 pounds of HHGs.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

JPPSO/ECAF  recommends  denial  of  the   applicant’s   request.    In
accordance with paragraph U5365, JFTR, members who retire from  active
duty are entitled to store and ship HHGs to a home of selection (HOS).
 The HHGs must be turned  over  for  transportation  within  one  year
following termination of active  duty.   Entitlement  to  nontemporary
storage also terminates one year following termination of active duty.
 In accordance with paragraph   U5365-F, JFTR, an extension of the one
year limit may be requested based on an unexpected event, outside  the
member’s control, which prevents them from moving their  HHGs  to  the
home of selection within  the  one  year  limit.   The  applicant  was
granted several extensions of the time limit to move  his  HHGs.   The
final extension extended the time limit to 31 Aug  97.   However,  the
extensions did not extend the Government’s obligation for  payment  of
storage costs.

In May 95, the applicant shipped a total of 9,320 pounds to  his  HOS.
He also placed 5,120  pounds  of  goods  in  storage.   Since  he  was
authorized a total of 11,000 pounds for his grade he did not incur any
overweight charges on the shipment of the HHGs to his  HOS.   However,
since his entitlement to storage costs expired on 31  Aug  92,  he  is
financially responsible for all charges related to the storage of  his
HHGs.  The applicant  states  he  should  not  have  to  pay  for  the
overweight charges of 3,440 pounds (9,320+5,120-11,000).

Applicant’s HHGs have been in storage since May  95.   The  Government
paid the fees from May 95 through Dec 97.  Since his entitlement ended
in Aug 92, he owes the Government for these payments.  The  commercial
storage company was advised in Jan 98 to bill the  applicant  directly
for his storage costs.  The company advises the  applicant  failed  to
completely pay the fees.  The applicant’s  assertion  he  thought  the
storage fees were being taken out of his retirement pay each month  is
without merit.  There are no procedures for a  transportation  officer
to receive money owed to a commercial entity.

The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
24 Sep 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 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
primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice warranting the relief  requested.   It
is clear the Air Force erred  in  placing  the  applicant’s  household
goods  in  nontemporary  storage  after  his   one-year   entitlement.
However, the Air Force paid the fees associated with  this  error  for
over two years.  Subsequently, the applicant was placed on notice  the
responsibility for payment of storage fees on his household goods  was
his.  Yet, he failed to take the necessary  measures  to  resolve  the
problem, i.e., removing the goods from storage or making the  required
payments.  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-2004-
02466 in Executive Session on 2 November 2004, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, JPPSO/ECAF, dated 20 Sep 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Sep 04.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair