RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00115
            INDEX CODE:  108.07
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

      Mandatory Case Completion Date:  11 Jul 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes some shipping irregularities occurred during  his  HHG  shipment
that resulted in improper assessment of his  shipping  weight.   He  made  a
permanent change-of-station (PCS) move from the Pentagon to McChord AFB,  WA
in August 1999.  His shipment net weight was 16,038  lbs.   As  he  prepared
for retirement he moved the majority of his  HHGs  from  Montgomery,  AL  to
Burke, VA.  That net weight was  16,511  lbs.   He  later  moved  additional
furniture with a total net weight of 978 lbs for  a  total  move  weight  of
17,489 lbs.  There was no large furniture purchases to make his move  weight
different from the VA to WA or  AL  to  VA  moves.   He  contends  that  his
shipment could not have grown to the alleged net weight of  19,890  lbs  and
then shrink again.  He has never had overweight shipments  in  any  previous
PCS move.

When the moving van showed up at  the  WA  residence  there  was  already  a
shipment on the truck that took  up  a  quarter  of  the  truck.   Applicant
believes the trucker put down  the  gross  weight  of  the  entire  combined
shipment on the Government Bill of Lading (GBL)  rather  than  the  separate
shipment weights.  By his estimate, a quarter of a truck would  weigh  3,000
to 7,000 lbs, based on his previous moves.   JPPSO  states  all  the  weight
documentation is in order, however they were unable to  provide  information
regarding  the  other  shipment  on  the  truck.   The  moving  company  was
unable/unwilling to produce the paperwork as well.  It is a common  practice
for  the  receiving  base  to  reweigh  a  shipment  for   verification   if
overweight.  This did not occur in his case.  While  not  required,  such  a
customary reweigh would have likely clarified the problem.

In addition, applicant states the delivery of his HHGs  occurred  in  August
2002, but he was not notified of the problem  until  November  2003.   In  a
case where there is likely to be a dispute, this is an  inappropriate  level
of service.  He was told by DFAS that the debt would be  taken  out  over  a
several month period.  Instead, because of his impending retirement, a  lump
sum of $2,278.41 was taken out  of  his  final  pay  causing  a  significant
financial hardship during his transition to civilian life.

In support of his request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement  and
documentation associated with his PCS move and establishment  of  his  debt.
His complete submission, with attachments is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, on  1
Jun 83.  He was voluntarily ordered to extended active  duty  on  that  same
date.  He was progressively promoted to the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank  of  1  Oct  99.
He voluntarily retired for years of service, on 31 Jul 04.

Applicant made a PCS move from McChord AFB, WA to Maxwell AFB, AL  per  S.O.
AA-653 dated 1 Jul 02.  The shipment moved under that PCS had a  net  weight
of 22,100 lbs.  He was billed $2,278.41 for  exceeding  the  maximum  weight
allowance of 17,500 lbs.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

JPPSO-SAT/ECAF recommends denial.  JPPSO states The Comptroller  General  of
the United States has clearly stated that the weight of a previous  shipment
cannot be used to substitute  for  the  weight  of  a  subsequent  shipment.
Weights are  supported  by  certified  weight  tickets  and  the  member  is
responsible for all weight  shipped  in  excess  of  the  authorized  weight
allowance.  While the applicant  makes  inference  to  fraud,  he  does  not
provide any evidence to support it.  The Comptroller General has  held  that
the burden of establishing fraud rests upon the party alleging it,  and  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 just a suspicion or conjecture.

When it is not practical to weigh a shipment the industry accepted  practice
is applying 40  lbs  per  inventory  line  item  to  obtain  a  constructive
shipment weight.  His shipment contained 567  inventory  line  items,  times
40, would produce a constructive shipment weight of 22,680 lbs, which  tends
to support the official scale weight of 22,100  lbs.   Additional  shipments
on the moving van are common practice in the moving industry.   Weights  are
obtained before and after each loading/offloading, and any property  on  the
vehicle becomes part of the tare  weight.   Thus,  the  net  weight  of  the
applicant's property was not affected.  Failure to perform  a  reweigh  does
not invalidate weight certificates already obtained for a  shipment.   While
reweighs are authorized under certain circumstances,  these  directives  are
procedural in nature and do not provide additional entitlements  nor  confer
benefits not specifically authorized by law.  In this case, when the  weight
of the property is established by weight  certificates  and  no  substantial
evidence is presented to indicate that such certificates are in  error,  the
charge for excess weight must be sustained.   The  JPPSO  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 11  Feb
05 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice warranting  corrective  action.   Subsequent
to his HHG move performed in conjunction with his retirement  from  the  Air
Force, it was determined he exceeded his maximum weight allowance  by  2,536
lbs and was  billed  $2,278.41.   He  contends,  among  other  things,  that
shipping irregularities occurred  during  his  move  that  led  to  improper
assessment of his shipping weight.  After a thorough review of the  evidence
presented, it is our opinion that the excessive  amount  of  time  taken  to
notify the applicant he had exceeded his  weight  limitations  coupled  with
the unwillingness and inability to provide him  with  the  documentation  he
requested  in  order  to  support  is  appeal,  inhibited  his  efforts   to
adequately dispute the indebtedness.  The comments of JPPSO are duly  noted;
however, we believe the applicant  has  established  that  reasonable  doubt
exists with the accuracy of his household shipment weights,  and  any  doubt
in this matter should be resolved in his favor.  Accordingly,  we  recommend
his records be corrected as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Government Bill of Lading JP-
370690, dated 8 July 2002, was amended to show he was authorized shipment
of a total of 2,655 pounds of professional books, papers and equipment
(PBP&E).

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2005-
00115 in Executive Session on 6 Apr 05, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:


      Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair


      Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member

      Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jan 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, JPPSO-SAT/ECAF, dated 1 Feb 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Feb 05.




                             CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
                                             Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2005-00115




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Government Bill of
Lading JP-370690, dated 8 July 2002, was amended to show he was authorized
shipment of a total of 2,655 pounds of professional books, papers and
equipment (PBP&E).







                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency