RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00390
INDEX CODE: 128.14
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 AUGUST 2007
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be compensated for the 28 days past her Required Delivery Date (RDD)
without household goods (HHGs).
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The mistake was made by the Joint Personal Property Shipping Office
(JPPSO) located in Honolulu Hawaii. She made accommodations to live
without HHGs through the RDD, but was not prepared for the 28 days after
the RDD. She was denied loaner furniture, temporarily living
accommodations and access to the family support center because she had
separated from the Air Force. She went 28 days without a bed, sheets,
blankets, towels, pots, pans, utensils, chairs and etc.
In support of her request the applicant provided her AF Form 100, Request
and Authorization for separation, DD Form 1299, Application for Shipment
and/or Storage of Personal Property, DD Form 619-1, Statement of
Accessorial Services Performed, (Storage-in-transit delivery and
Reweigh), letter from Commanding officer of Fleet and Industrial Supply
Center dated 28 Nov 05 and a personal statement.
Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was commissioned in the Regular Air Force as a second
lieutenant on 23 May 03 and was honorably discharged on 15 Sep 06.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter
prepared by JPPSO at Exhibit(B).
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
JPPSO-SAT/ECAF recommends denial. JPPSO states applicants HHGs were
picked up 22 Aug 05. She was given an RDD of 20 Oct 05. Due to an
administrative error at origin, the shipment was not released until mid
Oct 05 and did not arrive at its destination until 17 Nov 05. On 21 Nov
05, the HHGs were placed in storage for 26 days since the applicant was
not available to accept delivery. Applicant did not indicate what
compensation she is seeking, nor how the late arrival of the HHG shipment
caused her higher than normal living expenses. Applicant did not respond
to JPPSO’s request for the additional information dated 13 Feb 06.
The JPPSO evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23
Jun 06 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this
office has received no response (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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s
submission, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim
of either an error or an injustice. Applicant’s contentions are duly
noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air
Force. Therefore we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and
adopt its rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has failed to sustain her burden that she has suffered either
an error or an injustice. Therefore, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought.
___________________________________________________________________
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 documentary evidence was considered:
Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-00390 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Jan 06, with/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, JPPSO-SAT/ECAF, dated 15 Jun 06.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jun 06.
JAY H. JORDAN
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02941
Prior to expiration of her travel and transportation entitlements on 31 Jul 01, she requested an extension of the time limit for educational reasons. Since 31 Jul 01, the applicant’s travel and transportation entitlements have been extended in one-year increments as a member undergoing education or training, and she has been informed the approval did not extend her NTS entitlement beyond 31 Jul 01. She was also informed this was the final extension she would be granted, as there was no...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03808
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was counseled that he is entitled to one year of storage following his retirement from the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-03447
She completed 20 years and 19 days of active service for retirement. Under the provisions of paragraph U5012-I, JFTR, a written time limit extension that includes an explanation of the circumstances justifying the extension may be authorized/approved for a specific additional time period using the Secretarial Process only when circumstances prevented use within the prescribed time; must be for the shortest time appropriate under the circumstances; not be granted merely to accommodate...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00866
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. 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). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02814
The entitlement begins on the date the orders are issued and terminates one year from the date of termination of active duty. However, evidence shows the applicant agreed to have his HHG shipped to Lancaster, CA, upon his separation from active duty and subsequently requested an extension of storage until 23 December 2005. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02069
She was not able to use her HHG shipping entitlement during the allotted time and requested an extension. 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 their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00633
Therefore, 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. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02991
There is no provision in policy or law to authorize members additional weight because quarters are not available upon arrival of their HHG. 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. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02165
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states the TMO's responsibility was to counsel him on his entitlement to have his HHG stored at government expense for one year at the place of origin. The DD Form 1299, Application for Shipment and/or Storage of Personal Property, is not designed to be used for counseling and contains no information or references to shipping entitlements for disabled service members...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02335
As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ 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...