RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02970
                                        INDEX CODE:  128.02
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                      COUNSEL:  NONE

  XXXXXXXXXXX                           HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  31 March 2007


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His indebtedness for excess weight charges, stemming from  shipment  of  his
Household Goods (HHG), be reconsidered, deleted, and, he be  reimbursed  for
monies already collected.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the packing, review of inventory,  and  loading,  the  shipper  never
indicated that there was a possibility of exceeding  the  weight  allowance.
He could have transported any excess weight himself had he  been  given  the
opportunity.  He was not  concerned  with  exceeding  the  weight  allowance
since his HHG were substantially the same as during his permanent change  of
station (PCS) from England back to the United States in the Summer  of  2000
(minus some heavy items).  The excess of  over  5000  pounds  of  his  Joint
Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) weight allowance is  absolutely  outrageous
and completely impossible.  It represents a 33% increase from his prior  PCS
move.  It is clear to  him  that  an  error  must  have  occurred  with  the
weighing process or paperwork at the moving  company  level  that  could  be
innocent or suspicious. He had a considerable amount  of  professional  gear
that he is not sure was determined accurately as compared to his 2000  move.


In  support  of  his  application,  the  applicant   submits   a   personnel
memorandum; and, a copy of the DD Form 139,  Pay  Adjustment  Authorization,
from  his  2000  PCS  move.   The  applicant’s  complete  submission,   with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the military personnel data system, the applicant is  currently
serving on active duty in the grade of captain with a  date  of  rank  of  1
June 1997.  He has a Total Active Federal Military Service Date of 27  April
1986, a Total Active Federal Commissioned Service Date of 30 May 1993 and  a
projected date of separation of 30 April 2006.

Per Special Order AA-0219, dated 24 December 2003, the applicant made a  PCS
move from Andrews Air Force Base (AFB), Maryland (MD),  to  Osan  Air  Base,
Korea.  He made two shipments of personal property in conjunction  with  his
reassignment.   His  HHG  shipment  which  moved  from   Columbia,   MD   to
Leonardtown, MD, under Government Bill of Lading (GBL) ZY-721080 had  a  net
weight of 23,220 pounds.  His shipment of unaccompanied baggage  (UB)  moved
from MD to Korea under GBL JQ-034563  with  a  net  weight  of  404  pounds.
After receiving a weight credit of  2,448  pounds  for  professional  books,
papers and  equipment  (PBP&E)  and  a  10  percent  reduction  for  packing
materials, he exceeded his authorized  weight  allowance  by  5,064  pounds,
incurring excess weight charges of $984.89.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

JPPSO-SAT/ECAF recommends denial of the applicant’s  request.   ECAF  states
in accordance with the JFTR, paragraph U5310-B, a maximum authorized  weight
allowance for a member in the grade  of  O-3,  with  dependents,  is  14,500
pounds.  The applicant incurred excess  weight  charges  for  effecting  two
shipments with a combined  net  weight  allowance  of  23,624  pounds.   The
applicant’s HHG weight was obtained on certified scales and  signed  by  the
weigh master.  Comparison of the applicant’s two inventories from  his  2000
HHG shipment and his current HHG shipment indicates they were not  the  same
size.  The previous shipment in 2000  contained  441  inventory  line  items
while the current shipment had 611 inventory line items.

ECAF states when it is impossible or impractical  to  weigh  a  shipment  on
certified scales,  if  approved  by  the  traffic  management  officer,  the
shipment weight may be  constructed  by  multiplying  40  pounds  times  the
number of  inventory  line  items.   If  this  method  was  applied  to  the
applicant’s shipment, a constructed shipment weight of 24,440  for  the  611
line items would be obtained; which, tends to  support  the  official  scale
weight of 23,220 pounds that was obtained for this shipment.  In  accordance
to the JFTR, paragraph U5340-A, the  applicant  is  financially  responsible
for a prorata share of the transportation costs as  a  result  of  exceeding
the authorized weight allowance.
The ECAF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In response to the Air Force advisory  opinion,  the  applicant  points  out
that there was a difference in the packing methods between the crew  in  the
United Kingdom (UK) and the  one  in  the  United  States  (US).   The  more
experienced crew in the UK utilized much less packing material and boxes  in
a more efficient system.  The crew in the US (inexperienced, poorly  trained
staff) utilized much more packing  material  in  order  to  box  his  items,
creating a larger volume  and  being  wasteful  and  inefficient  while  not
increasing the protection of the  items.   Therefore,  the  number  of  line
items is not a valid comparison that would justify the increase  in  overall
shipment weight.  The applicant’s rebuttal 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 probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the  evidence  of
record, the Board is not persuaded that the applicant has  been  the  victim
of an error or  injustice.   The  applicant  requests  relief  of  the  debt
incurred by exceeding the shipping allowance  for  HHG;  however,  from  the
evidence provided it appears  the  applicant’s  entitlements  were  properly
computed.  We find no evidence the  applicant  was  miscounseled  concerning
shipment  of  his  household  goods  nor  find  that  he  was  treated   any
differently than any other individual in his same  situation.   In  view  of
the above and absent evidence by the applicant to the contrary, we  find  no
basis upon which to favorably consider the applicant’s request.   Therefore,
we agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt  the  rationale
expressed as the basis for our decision that the  applicant  has  failed  to
sustain his burden that he has suffered either an  error  or  an  injustice.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that  no  basis  exists  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 issues 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 28 February 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
                 Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2005-02970
was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 20 Jul 04.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AF/DPPC, dated 18 Nov 04.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Nov 04.




                                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                                   Panel Chair