RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-04094
							INDEX CODE:  128.02
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL:  NONE

  							HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive the government constructive cost (GCC) and incentive 
payment for the personally procured move (PPM) of his household 
goods (HHG), that was in effect at the time of his Traffic 
Management Office (TMO) briefing (237% of the baseline rate) 
versus the 100% of the baseline rate that was in effect when his 
move actually took place.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The TMO counselor at Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB), FL counseled 
him that he would receive a rate of 237% if he decided to 
conduct a do-it-yourself (DITY) move of his HHG.  He understood 
it was an estimate; however, he was not told that there would be 
a rate change between October and November.  Since learning his 
entitlement would be approximately $3,700 versus around $11,000 
for 12,000 pounds, it has placed a hardship on him and his 
family.  This is an extreme monetary difference for a junior 
officer and his family who were counting on the money.  

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a personal 
statement and a Transportation Assistant’s memorandum for 
record.  

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade 
of second lieutenant (O-1) with a date of rank of 17 November 
2006.  He has a Total Active Military Service Date of 1 
September 1997 and a Total Active Federal Commissioned Service 
Date of 17 November 2006.  The remaining relevant facts are 
contained in the Air Force advisory opinion at Exhibit B.  

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

JPPSO-SAT/ECAF recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  
ECAF states the applicant was reassigned from Tyndall AFB, 
Florida to Tinker AFB, Oklahoma per special Order A-0786, dated 
14 August 2007.  On 15 August 2007, he submitted an application 
to effect a PPM of his HHG.  Under the PPM method, he was 
entitled to receive an incentive payment of 95% of the GCC.  The 
GCC is comprised of the cost for packing and line haul of the 
lowest rate carrier for the HHG weight or authorized weight 
allowance (whichever is lower) to his new duty station.  At the 
time of his counseling, the TMO at Tyndall AFB provided an 
estimated GCC of $9,515.55 with an estimated incentive payment 
of $9,093.77.  The estimate was based upon an estimated net 
weight of 10,000 pounds and a current GCC rate of $95.16 per one 
hundred pounds, which was 237% of the baseline rate.  

Rates for movement of personal property in the Continental 
United States (CONUS) are negotiated semi-annually between 
Headquarters Surface Deployment and Distribution Command and 
transportation service providers (TSP), with rate changes being 
effective 1 May and 1 November of each year.  The rate at the 
time the applicant was counseled was 237% of the baseline rate 
and the rate at the time he actually performed the PPM was 100% 
of the baseline rate.  

In November 2007, the applicant performed the PPM and provided 
weight tickets reflecting a net weight of 15,170 pounds to the 
TMO at Tinker AFB for review and certification for payment.  His 
prescribed weight allowance was 12,000 pounds; therefore, the 
TMO used the authorized weight of 12,000 pounds and the current 
GCC rate of $39.29 per hundred pounds which was 100% of the base 
line rate.  

Paragraph U5320-D.2, to the Joint Federal Travel Regulation 
(JFTR) provides that a member who personally arranges for 
transportation of personal property is authorized actual cost 
reimbursement not to exceed the Government’s constructed 
transportation, or payment of a monetary allowance to equal 95% 
of the GCC.  The calculations made at the time of counseling are 
just an estimate.  The actual payment is based upon the cost the 
Government would have paid to ship the actual weight at the time 
the PPM was made.  Had the Government arranged for the shipment 
of the applicant’s property at the time the applicant made his 
PPM, the cost would have been based upon 100% of the baseline 
rate.  The cost receipts submitted as a result of his PPM was 
less than the incentive received; therefore, he did not lose any 
funds making the PPM.  

The ECAF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 27 June 2008 for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, this office has received no response. 

________________________________________________________________
_

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 an error or an 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 their 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 8 October 2008, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

			XXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
			XXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
			XXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member



The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2007-04094 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dtd 6 Dec 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Letter, JPPSO-SAT/ECAF, dtd 20 Jun 08, w/atchs.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 27 Jun 08.




                                  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                                  Panel Chair