RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00952
INDEX CODE: 128.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 30 SEPTEMBER 2007
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reimbursed in the amount of $424.00 for the difference in shipping
costs of his Privately Owned Vehicle (POV).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
While coordinating his PCS from Nellis AFB to Elmendorf AFB, his advisor
told him that he could ship his POV from any Vehicle Processing Center
(VPC) at no additional cost. He was advised incorrectly and thus charged
the difference in shipping costs between Orlando and Los Angeles. He is
seeking financial restitution for the mistakes of the responsible Travel
Management Office (TMO).
In support of the application, the applicant submits his unsigned personal
statement and his POV shipping documents.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
According to the military personnel data system (MilPDS), the applicant is
currently serving on active duty in the grade of major with a Total Active
Federal Military Service Date of 31 May 1995.
According to the Air Force office of primary responsibility, in February
2006, the applicant made a permanent change of station (PCS) move from
Nellis AFB, NV, to Elmendorf AFB, AK. He shipped his POV in conjunction
with his PCS.
The Los Angeles, CA, VPC is the designated VPC for members assigned to
Nellis AFB, NV, when shipping a vehicle to Alaska. The applicant shipped
his POV through the Orlando, FL, VPC and was charged $424.00, the
difference in shipping cost between the authorized port and the alternate
port.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
JPPSO-SAT/ECAF recommends denial of the applicant’s request. ECAF states
when a POV shipment is authorized, one POV not to exceed 20 measurement
tons may be transported from the POV port of VPC serving the old permanent
duty station (PDS) or a POV port/VPC serving the passenger port of
debarkation (POD) or a POV port/VPC between the old and new PDS to the POV
unloading port/VPC serving the new PDS. Transportation may be between
other than the designated ports, provided the member reimburses the
Government for any excess cost involved.
ECAF notes when members are counseled on shipping a POV, they are provided
a copy of “Shipping Your POV Pamphlet.” The member’s responsibilities are
listed on page 6 of the pamphlet, and states in part “If a member chooses
to ship out of an alternate port, there may be an alternate port charge
incurred to the member if the alternate port is farther away from their new
duty assignment than the designated port. …”
ECAF concludes when members ship HHG or POVs the entitlement is always from
the old duty station to the new duty station via the most direct route.
When members choose to ship to or from an alternate place, they are
required to reimburse the Government the cost of the difference between the
alternate location and the authorized points.
The complete ECAF evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 June
2006, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office
has received no response (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 probable error or injustice. The applicant states he was
“advised incorrectly.” However, other than his own assertions, he has
provided no evidence that would lead us to believe the TMO counselor
provided misleading or inaccurate information. In addition, he was issued
a pamphlet which stated that an alternate port charge may incur if an
alternate port was used to ship his POV. In this regard, 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 and find no
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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-
00952 in Executive Session on 25 July 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Mr. Elwood C. Lewis III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Mar 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, JPPSO-SAT/ECAF, dated 1 Jun 06, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 June 06.
JAMES W. RUSSELL III
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00430
For members departing Goodfellow AFB who wish to take a vehicle on the AMHS ferry, the member calls the AMHS office direct to obtain a reservation. The TMO at Goodfellow AFB states the applicant discussed travel by POV via the AMHS ferry with them but decided against it and requested an airline ticket. Had he indicated he wished to ship his POV via the AMHS ferry, he would have had to have a reservation prior to departing his origin base, accompany his POV, and he would not have been...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03398
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03398 INDEX CODE: 128.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The transportation charges in the amount of $3,802.36 to ship his automobile from Australia to Maxwell Air Force Base (AFB), Alabama, be waived. ECAF states that the applicant exhausted his POV...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03390
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was advised by the traffic management office (TMO) at Spangdahlem Air Base (AB), Germany, that he could ship his vehicle at personal expense and be reimbursed up to what it would cost the government to ship the vehicle. In addition to shipping his POV at personal expense without authorization from the TMO, the applicant did not use a United States (U.S.) flag vessel to ship the POV. The applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00760
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. Para U5410-A provides that when a POV shipment is authorized, one POV not to exceed 20 measurement tons may be transported from the POV port or vehicle processing center (VPC) serving the old permanent duty station (PDS) to the unloading port/VPC serving the new PDS. However, other than his own assertions, he has provided no evidence substantiating his claims.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03475
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: PPA/ECAF recommends approval. Incident to the PCS, the applicant effected a shipment of HHG at government expense, and personally arranged to ship his motorcycle to the Philippines. However, the motorcycle qualifies as HHG and he was authorized to ship it to the Philippines as HHG.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00761
Flag carrier service is not available must be provided to the member and must be attached to the request for reimbursement. As to the applicant’s request for reimbursement for the mileage of this vehicle, we concur with the JPPSO-SAT/ECAF assessment and are of the opinion that the applicant should be reimbursed for the mileage to get the vehicle to the POV port or vehicle processing center serving the old permanent duty station, since it appears that he would have been entitled to...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02418
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02418 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be authorized expenses in the amount of $4,750.00 to fly back to Orlando, Florida to claim his privately owned vehicle (POV). However, to correct the error in initially authorizing a POV shipment, they recommend the applicants records be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000393
Under the JFTR, reimbursement of personally-procured POV shipment cost is not authorized. Therefore, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant's record to show he was authorized reimbursement of his personally-procured transportation of his POV and entitlement to reimbursement equal to the normal Governmental cost of shipping or the actual shipping cost, whichever is less, from California to Hawaii. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02500
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02500 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive the necessary documentation for approval of the personally procured move (PPM) of his household goods (HHG) during a permanent change of station (PCS) move. ECAF states the applicant indicates he should be reimbursed for three primary...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02111
He did not ship a vehicle at government expense using his orders, as was his entitlement. He used the same company to ship his POV that the government uses to transport motor vehicles from Honolulu to Los Angeles; however, he paid less than the government contract would have cost. He elected to pay $948 to ship his POV from Honolulu, HI, to Los Angeles, CA, at personal expense.