RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02714

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive full reimbursement of $1,935.72 for expenses  he  incurred  as  a
result of his Personally Procured Move (PPM).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has exhausted all resources available for resolution of  this  particular
dilemma and was recommended to the  Board  for  assistance  in  resolving  a
major discrepancy in the computation of  his  permanent  change  of  station
(PCS) household goods weight entitlement.  Presently, he is  being  told  he
will not be reimbursed for Personally Procured Move (PPM) expenses  incurred
during their PCS from Minot AFB to F.E. Warren AFB.  The Government Bill  of
Lading (GBL) weight for moving his  household  goods  exceeded  the  maximum
allowable weight authorized by the Joint Federal  Transportation  Regulation
(JFTR) allowance of 14,500 pounds

There appears to be a gross weight miscalculation on the weight  charged  by
the contract carrier.   With  the  error  of  JPPSO  failing  to  weigh  his
shipment, there is no way to determine the correct weight of  his  household
goods shipment.  In addition, since no reweigh was performed,  there  is  no
way to determine if in fact the weight obtain at  the  origin  was  correct,
was it weighed with another members property or  possible  at  the  extreme,
fraudulent.  Given that it is unfeasible to repack, reweigh and  unpack  our
household goods  to  prove  the  miscalculation,  he  is  hoping  the  Board
positively reviews his request and is able to correct  this  discrepancy  so
that his family may be compensated appropriately for the PPM portion of  the
PCS move.

In addition, the weight was based on preliminary estimates  given  by  three
separate members of the contract carrier.  There was no opportunity for  re-
weigh  because  the  error  was  discovered  after  delivery.    There   was
incongruity between the amounts the member personally moved versus what  the
carrier moved. There was no comparison of prior permanent change of  station
(PCS) move weights as to current weight.

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided   a   personal   letter,
documentation associated with his move, copies of DD Form  619/1,  Statement
of Accessorial Services Performed, and a DITY cost estimate report.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on extended  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
captain.

Per Special Order AF-0615, dated 3 May 2004, the applicant made a  PCS  move
from Minot AFB ND to FE Warren AFB WY.  He  made  a  shipment  of  Household
Goods (HHG) in conjunction with his assignment.  A shipment of  HHG  with  a
net weight of 17,480 pounds moved under Government Bill of Lading (GBL)  ZY-
735462.  He also made application for a personally procured  move  (PPM)  of
HHG.  He estimated the weight of the PPM to  be  1,000  pounds.   Since  the
applicant exceeded his authorized weight allowance on the GBL  shipment,  he
is not authorized an incentive payment for PPM shipment.

As prescribed in the JFTR,  para  U5310-B,  the  maximum  authorized  weight
allowance for members in the  grade  of  0-3,  with  dependents,  is  14,500
pounds.  At Government expense, the applicant made a shipment of HHG with  a
net  weight  of  17,480  pounds.   The  shipment  contained  355  pounds  of
professional  books,  papers,  and  equipment  (PBP&E).    Considering   the
reduction of PBP&E and the authorizing packing allowance, the  shipment  had
a net chargeable weight of 15,412 pounds.  Thus, the Government has met  its
full  obligation  in  moving  the  applicant’s  maximum  authorized   weight
entitlements.  Therefore, there is no authority to pay him for a  personally
procured move.  When  a  member  makes  more  than  one  type  of  shipment,
Government arranged and personally procured, the incentive is based  on  the
authorized weight remaining after subtracting the GBL shipment  weight  from
the member’s authorized weight allowance.  In this case,  as  the  applicant
exceeded  the  weight  authorization  on  the  GBL  shipment,  there  is  no
remaining weight to subtract.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ECAF recommended denial.   The  applicant  states  he  believes  the  weight
tickets are in error.  However, he did not provide any evidence  to  support
the allegation of fraud. In decision B-200642, 18  May  1982,  the  CG  held
that the burden of establishing fraud rests upon the party alleging it,  and
that the fraud must  be  proven  by  evidence  sufficient  to  overcome  the
existing presumption of honesty and fair  dealing.  Circumstantial  evidence
is competent only if it affords a clear inference of fraud  and  amounts  to
more than a suspicion or conjecture. If, however, the circumstances  are  as
consistent with honesty and fair dealing as with dishonesty,  the  inference
of honesty is required to be drawn.

At the applicant’s request, the Government contracted with  the  carrier  to
move his HHG.  As the  service  was  accomplished  in  accordance  with  the
contract, the Government is obligated  to  pay  the  carrier  based  on  the
certified weight tickets.  Any estimates made prior to packing  and  loading
his shipment on the vehicle is just that, an estimate, and  cannot  be  used
to refute the official recorded weight.

ECAF complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated it appears fraud  has
occurred.  He did not now, nor has he ever owned  a  quantity  of  household
goods that can support the alleged weight reflected on the  provided  weight
tickets. Additionally, a reweigh of his household goods was never  provided,
as is standard policy, nor  was  the  possibility  of  another  individual’s
household goods on the truck prior to his  move  addressed  adequately.   It
appears by all evidence provided  the  carrier  failed  to  adjust  for  the
weight accordingly to satisfy the dual shipment.  He understands that he  is
not the first person to ever have issues  with  a  military  move  in  their
careers but he is now feeling  the  emotional  and  financial  pain  of  not
paying enough  attention  to  the  process  as  it  was  unfolding  to  take
immediate action for reconciliation.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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, we do not  find  these  assertions,  in
and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the  rationale
provided by the Air Force.  In this respect, we note that the applicant  did
not provide any evidence to support the allegation of fraud, nor did he  use
his option to reweigh at the time of delivery.   Therefore,  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.   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-
02714 in Executive Session on 4 January 2005, under the  provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member

                       Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member



The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Jul 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ECAF, dated 6 Oct 04.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 04.
    Exhibit D.  Applicant’s response, 8 Nov 04, w/atchs.



                                   PATRICIA D. VESTAL
                                   Chair