RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00833
INDEX CODE: 128.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 SEPTEMBER 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be reimbursed $1,462.80 to reflect Full Replacement Value (FRV)
for damaged household goods (HHG) caused in a shipment pursuant to
Permanent Change of Station (PCS) orders.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She submitted the correctly completed paperwork for FRV insurance on
her (HHG) through proper channels and was assured everything was taken
care of. However, when she requested a copy of her Government Bill of
Lading (GBL), no FRV insurance had been issued.
In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement
and additional documents associated with the issues cited in her
contentions. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments,
is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
19 June 1995. She is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
captain, with an effective date and date of rank of 31 May 1999.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air
Force at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLSA/JACC recommends the application be denied. JACC states that
when the HHG were delivered in Montgomery, AL, there was substantial
damage. The applicant filed a claim for $8,540.72 with the Maxwell
AFB claims office for the damages, but was awarded $7,228.00 because
depreciation was applied to six items on her claim in accordance with
Air Force Instruction 51-502. JACC indicates the Maxwell Claims
Office did everything correctly by properly following the governing
Air Force instruction and procedures directed by higher headquarters
when adjudicating the applicant’s claim for damages.
Although the applicant requested FRV insurance on her HHG shipment and
took all the necessary steps to get it, JACC recommends no additional
payment be made on her claim. They came to this recommendation after
reviewing all the evidence in the AFBCMR case file, documentation in
the actual claims file, and after consulting with the Chief Officer at
the Traffic Management Office (TMO), Bolling AFB. If the applicant
did actually receive FRV coverage and JACC was able to collect the FRV
from the carrier, the applicant would have been awarded an additional
$172.00 above what she has already been awarded on her claim. If the
applicant had actually paid for the FRV coverage, she would have had
an out of pocket expense of $437.82, which is the amount the FRV would
have cost her. According to TMO, this figure is based on the
valuation amount the applicant requested ($55,750.00) and the weight
of the shipment. Therefore, $172.00 minus the expense of $437.82 that
she would have paid, results in a negative figure of $265.82.
Therefore, no additional payment to the applicant is recommended on
her claim. The AFLSA/JACC evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit
B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 20
May 2005 for review and response. As of this date, no response has
been received by this office (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
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 injustice. After reviewing the applicant’s
submission and the evidence of record, we are unpersuaded that the
applicant has been the victim of an injustice. In this respect, we
note that, if the applicant had actually received the FRV coverage and
the FRV collected from the carrier, she would have been awarded an
additional $172.00 above what she had already received on her claim.
However, the $437.82 FRV coverage would have been deducted from the
additional monies awarded, which would result in a negative figure.
She would then owe the difference between these two figures to the
government. In view of the foregoing, we agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the appropriate Air Force office, AFLSA/JACC, that
no additional payment to the applicant is recommended. Accordingly,
we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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-2005-
00833 in Executive Session on 22 June 2005, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Mar 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFLSA/JACC, dated 19 May 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 05.
FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00834
As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). In this respect, we are in agreement with the opinion and recommendation of the appropriate Air Force office, AFLSA/JACC, that the evidence supports awarding the recommended amount of $807.49 by the Traffic Management Office rather than the applicant’s requested amount of $1,138.84. FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-00834 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the...
Normally, when the carrier arrives at destination, they contact the destination transportation office who coordinate the delivery with the military member. According to JPPSO/XO, the applicant’s shipment exceeded the prescribed weight allowance as evidence by two sets of weight tickets, one at origin and one at destination. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 16 Nov 99,...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03436
He received a letter dated 29 Sep 06 stating the claim was denied because he was late submitting the DD Form 1840; consequently, the carrier did not receive the DD Form 1840 in the required amount of time. The claim files show the carrier provided the DD Form 1840 to the applicant at delivery and notified the applicant of the requirement to file timely notice. The claims examiner tried to determine why the applicant did not provide timely notice considering it is his third claim for HHGs...
She indicated on her DD Form 1299, Application for Shipment and/or Storage of Personal Property, that her shipment would contain professional items. In support of her request applicant provided a memorandum from the Quality Assurance office; her excess cost rebuttal adjudication letter; DD Forms 139, Pay Adjustment Authorization; DD Form 1299; AF Form 767, Extended Active Duty Order; and, Notification of Indebtedness letter. ...
Using the cube rule, ECAF increased the weight for professional books, papers, and equipment (PBP&G), from 50 pounds to 960 pounds for the unaccompanied baggage (UB) shipment and credited 457 pounds for missing and irreparably damaged items for the household goods (HHG) shipment that moved from Germany to England. JPPSO/CC indicates the applicant submitted an amendment to his original application in which he states he made another PCS move from England back to Germany and he was not...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1996-02029
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Director, Joint Personal Property Shipping Office, JPPSO-SAT/DIR, reviewed this application and recommended denial. ECAF again reviewed the case and based on claim documentation, they granted a weight credit of 493 pounds for missing and irreparably damaged items under GBL VP-154,889 and 108 pounds for items...
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Director, Joint Personal Property Shipping Office, JPPSO-SAT/DIR, reviewed this application and recommended denial. ECAF again reviewed the case and based on claim documentation, they granted a weight credit of 493 pounds for missing and irreparably damaged items under GBL VP-154,889 and 108 pounds for items...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02632
The applicant was authorized 17,000 lbs under the Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR), resulting in net excess weight shipped of 2,746 lbs. The applicant states that his request for an inspector and for a reweigh of his HHGs was not granted. ________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.
JPPSO/CC recommends that the applicant’s records be amended to show that the HHG shipment that was moved by air was moved via surface rates. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the household goods moved under Government Bill of Lading AP-234989, dated 22 November 1999, moved via surface rates. Exhibit C. Letters,...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02023
Since the letter was provided more than six months following the delivery of the shipment, ECAF contacted the carrier, only to discover that the carrier representative who signed the statement was not familiar with the shipment and that she, at the applicant’s request, identified items of PBP&E on the inventory per his request. In this case, reviews of the inventories reveal there were no items identified as PBP&E during the move. Following receipt of ECAF’s 14 May 2004 letter, he...