RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00866
            INDEX CODE:  128.14

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  13 Sep 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His spouse’s weight allowance for  shipment  of  her  household  goods
(HHG) be added to his weight allowance.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The indebtedness for the shipment of his HHG was unjust because it was
the result of miscounseling.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement
and documents pertaining to the shipment of his HHG.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s available  military  personnel  records  indicate  he  was
relieved from his  reserve  assignment  on  30  Apr  01  and  retired,
effective 1 May 01, in the grade of chief  master  sergeant.   He  was
credited with 28 years, 9 months, and 8 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

JPPSO-SAT/ECAF recommended denial noting the applicant  was  relieved
from a reserve assignment effective 30 April 01 for  the  purpose  of
retirement.  In conjunction with his release, he made a  shipment  of
household goods from San Jose, California, to Orlando, Florida.   The
shipment was picked up on 25 Jun 01 and moved under  Government  Bill
of Lading AP-627912.  It had a net weight of 20,300 pounds.

According to  JPPSO-SAT/ECAF,  the  applicant  was  initially  billed
$8,681.45 for exceeding the authorized  weight  allowance  of  14,500
pounds for a member in the grade of E-9 with dependents.  He filed  a
rebuttal of the charges stating his spouse was also a military member
and he wanted to combine her weight allowance with  his  entitlement.
He was advised that since his spouse was still  on  active  duty  and
without orders, she did not have an entitlement to  do  so.   It  was
also determined the applicant did not have any dependents other  than
his spouse.  Therefore, the weight allowance of 12,000 pounds for  an
E-9 without dependents had to be applied.  This increased the  excess
weight charges to $11,233.80.  The  governing  regulation  stipulates
that when a military member is married to  another  military  member,
neither can be counted as being a dependent of the other to  increase
any allowance (including HHG weight).  If no other dependent  exists,
both  are  members  without  dependents  in  determining  the  weight
allowance.

JPPSO-SAT/ECAF indicated that since orders relieving the  applicant’s
spouse from active duty were not issued until 4 Dec 01, the record is
clear she did not have a  shipping  entitlement  when  the  HHG  were
shipped.  The Comptroller General  has  consistently  held  that  any
action a member takes in anticipation of a  PCS,  but  prior  to  the
issuance of orders, is done for the member’s convenience and does not
obligate the government to pay for services  received  before  orders
are issued.

A complete copy of the JPPSO-SAT/ECAF evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed  the  advisory  opinion  and  provided  a  response
indicating it is unfortunate that due to the technicality of a date on
a retirement order, they owe the government for what should have  been
an entitlement  for  combined  military  service  of  61  years.   The
indebtedness he and his  spouse  has  incurred,  which  was  based  on
incorrect  information  they  received,  has  greatly  impacted  their
retirement plans and standard of living.  Therefore, he is  requesting
relief due to the great financial hardship.  The Board’s common  sense
approach to resolving this situation is requested and would be greatly
appreciated.

Applicant’s complete response 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 error or injustice warranting corrective action.  The
applicant's  complete  submission  was  thoroughly  reviewed  and  his
contentions were duly noted.  However, the majority of the Board  does
not find the applicant’s assertions or  his  supporting  documentation
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air
Force office of primary responsibility (OPR).  The applicant  contends
he was improperly advised regarding the shipment of his HHG.  However,
we believe that as a senior enlisted member who  was  probably  not  a
novice at moving, he should  have  been  aware  of  his  HHG  shipping
entitlements.  Therefore, in the absence of  sufficient  evidence  the
applicant was treated differently from others similarly situated,  the
majority agrees with the recommendation of  the  OPR  and  adopts  the
rationale presented as the basis for its decision that  the  applicant
has failed to sustain his  burden  of  establishing  he  has  suffered
either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly,  the  majority  of  the
Board finds no compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief
sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-00866 in Executive Session on 6 Jul 05, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Patricia A. Robey, Member
      Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member

By  a  majority  vote,  the  Board  voted  to  deny  the  application.
Mr. Daugherty voted to grant  the  appeal  and  submitted  a  minority
report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Mar 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, JPPSO-SAT/ECAF, dated 9 May 05.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, applicant, dated 16 Jun 05.
    Exhibit E.  Minority Report, dated 20 Jul 05.



                                   B. J. WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2005-00866






MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                 FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.





                                           JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                           Director
                                           Air Force Review Boards
Agency