RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03809
INDEX NUMBER: 128.00
XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 12 Jun 07
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His indebtedness to the Government in the amount of $1,437.34 be
remitted.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He received orders for a Humanitarian assignment on 11 Oct 02 and his
household goods (HHGs) were packed and shipped on 18 Oct 02, only six
days later.
He was not given a pre-inspection/weight estimate by the traffic
management office (TMO) or the shipper’s representative. He also did
not have time to sell/dispose of excess items even had he been aware
of the excess weight.
When he arranged for delivery of his HHGs on 2 Dec 02, he was advised
he was 700 pounds overweight. He was told to expect a formal notice
of excess weight shipped within six weeks. He did not receive formal
notification until 19 months later and for 1,478 excess pounds.
He was notified by letter on 30 Aug 04 of indebtedness to the
Government in the amount $1,437.34.
In support of his application, applicant provides copies of the
paperwork related to shipment of his HHGs and the subsequent debt.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Per Special Order AA-0058, dated 11 Oct 02, the applicant made a
permanent change of station (PCS) move from California to Ohio. He
shipped HHGs under Government Bill of Lading (GBL) JP-611238 with a
net weight of 13,760 pounds. A reweigh at destination produced a
lower weight of 13,700 pounds. He was billed $1,437.34 for exceeding
his prescribed weight allowance of 11,000 pounds.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
JPPSO-SAT/ECAF recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The
applicant’s statement he was not provided a pre-inspection or given an
estimate of his weight by the TMO is noted. However, the TMO does not
provide weight estimates or pre-inspections. The purpose of their
visit is to determine what materials will be needed to pack the
shipment. Any estimate made prior to actually weighing the shipment
cannot be used to refute the official record weight.
The applicant states he was selected for a humanitarian assignment and
did not have sufficient time to sell or dispose of excess items. He
was reassigned due to the illness of his father. However, there are
no provisions in the Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) to
increase the weight allowance for members who are reassigned for
humanitarian reasons.
The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
27 Jan 06 for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response
has not been received.
________________________________________________________________
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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, 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. Therefore, 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 Docket Number BC-2005-
03809 in Executive Session on 2 March 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Panel Chair
Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Sep 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, JPPSO-SAT/ECAF, dated 18 Jan 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jan 06.
MARILYN M. THOMAS
Panel Chair
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...
Therefore, at the time of his PCS the member’s weight allowance for the shipping of HHGs was 4,225 pounds, plus 1,100 pounds of UB. There has been no evidence submitted to show that he informed the destination site that his shipment exceeded the weight allowed for the shipping of his HHGs, nor did he request to have his shipment reweighed. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
The shipment had an origin net weight of 16,345 pounds. According to JPPSO, the applicant did not provide any information to support an error or injustice by transportation personnel that increased the weight of his HHG. At origin, the shipment had a net weight of 16,370 pounds.
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-00968
He was informed the total authorized weight of HHGs he could ship was 700 pounds. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: JPPSO-SAT/ECAF states that members in the grade of E-3, with dependents, are authorized a weight allowance of 8,000 pounds. He provided no additional evidence to support his claim, therefore, the reconsideration was denied.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01038
When he sent in his rebuttal to the excess costs, the only response he received was an increase in his total debt from $1364.09 to $1452.91 for shipment of a desk with his professional gear. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: JPPSO/ECAF recommends that the excess cost charges associated with shipment of the applicant’s household goods be reduced from $1452.91 to $942.26. After a complete review of the evidence of record, we believe that...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01823
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01823 INDEX CODE: 128.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The excess unaccompanied baggage (UB) costs for shipment of his household goods (HHG) be corrected to eliminate costs of professional books, papers, and equipment (PBP&E) and the remaining excess costs...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00839
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DFAS-POCC/DE recommends denial and states after contacting the Remissions and Waiver Branch for a recommendation, that office notified them had they received the applicant’s remission request prior to his separation, they would have recommended the debt be collected in full. Applying this method to the fourth shipment produced a net weight of 3,120 pounds (78 inventory times 40 pounds), at a cost of...