RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00602
            INDEX CODE:  128.14

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  1 SEP 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Home of Selection (HOS) Travel and Transportation entitlements  be
reinstated and extended for one year beginning 1 Dec 06 until  30  Nov
07.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has been the victim of  an  injustice  because  he  was  not  fully
advised on all the conditions required to  keep  his  household  goods
(HHG)  in  non-temporary  storage  and  have  them  delivered  at  the
government rate  after  his  entitlement  expired.   He  is  suffering
financially as a result.  He is willing to pay  the  government  rate;
however, he does  not  believe  he  should  be  required  to  pay  the
commercial rate.  He would not have entered the arrangement if he  had
known all the facts.  The only way this injustice could  be  corrected
is to grant him a one-year extension on his entitlement.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement
and documentation pertaining to his shipping and storage entitlements.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s available  military  personnel  records  indicate  he  was
relieved from active duty on 30 Sep  05  and  retired  for  length  of
service, effective 1 Oct 05, in the grade of colonel.  He was credited
with 26 years, 6 months, and 9 days of active service.

The remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the  Air
Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

JPPSO-SAT/CC recommends denial noting that on 28 Sep 06, the applicant
placed 2,687 pounds of HHG in non-temporary  storage.   He  was  later
advised his entitlement to store HHG at government expense had expired
and the storage lot was converted to his expense effective 30 Nov  06.
In accordance with the governing  travel  regulation,  when  a  member
retires from active duty, he/she is authorized HHG  transportation  to
an  HOS.   A  member  or  a  dependent  that  is   entitled   to   HHG
transportation  is  also  entitled  to  non-temporary  storage.    The
entitlement to storage begins  on  the  date  orders  are  issued  and
terminates one year from the date of termination of  active  duty.   A
member who is undergoing hospitalization, medical treatment, education
or training, or in other deserving cases that  preclude  him/her  from
relocating to the HOS within the prescribed time limit may request  to
have the time limit extended through the Secretarial  Process.   If  a
member has property  in  non-temporary  storage  at  the  time  he/she
receives an extension of the shipment time  limit,  the  property  may
remain in storage during the extended period if the member  agrees  to
pay all costs for non-temporary storage for any period over  one  year
from the date of termination of active service.  The  government  acts
as the member's agent and continues the storage  at  government  rates
during the extended period.

JPPSO-SAT/CC indicated that since  the  applicant  was  relieved  from
active duty on 30 Sep 05, his entitlement to  store  or  ship  HHG  at
government expense terminated on 30 Sep 06.  On 28 Sep  06,  two  days
prior to the expiration of his entitlements, the applicant placed  his
HHG in non-temporary storage.  It appears this was done for  the  sole
purpose of  being  able  to  store  HHG  at  government  rates.   This
contravenes the intent of the governing regulation.

In JPPSO-SAT/CC’s view, the applicant has not provided any information
that meets the criteria for an extension under the provisions  of  the
governing  regulation.   If  his   transportation   entitlements   are
reinstated it will require  the  storage  lot  to  be  converted  from
personal control to government control at government  expense.   Also,
the applicant will be authorized to ship the goods to any place in the
United States, including Alaska  and  Hawaii.   As  previously  noted,
based  on  his  separation  from  active  duty,   his   transportation
entitlement terminated on 30 Sep 06.  Because the HHG were  placed  in
storage so close to the end of the authorized period,  the  government
paid for storage until 30 Nov 06 while the lot was being converted  to
the applicant's expense.

A complete copy of the JPPSO-SAT/CC evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the  advisory  opinion  and  furnished  a  response
indicating that he disagrees with the advisory  opinion.   It  ignored
the most important facts,  made  unfounded  assumptions,  and  made  a
recommendation based on what it would cost the Air Force, not on  what
is fair and just.   He  was  advised  by  a  member  of  the  Lackland
Transportation Management Office (TMO) that if he had  goods  in  non-
temporary  storage  when  his  entitlement  expired,  the  cost  would
transfer to him  at  the  government  rate.   However,  that  was  not
correct.  The cost transferred to him at the  commercial  rate,  which
was considerably higher.  He believes a member of the Air Force should
be able to rely on the word of an  authorized  staff  member  and  not
suffer because of that individual’s mistake.

According to the  applicant,  he  was  following  the  letter  of  the
governing regulation as it was explained to him when he placed his HHG
in non-temporary storage.  While he had a reason that was personal, it
was also irrelevant.  If he had an entitlement, he  should  have  been
able to use it any way it was needed.

In the applicant’s view, this case should not  be  based  on  what  it
would cost the Air Force.  It should be based  on  what  is  fair  and
just.

Applicant’s complete response 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  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find  the  applicant’s  assertions  or  the
documentation  submitted  in  support  of  his   appeal   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force  office
of primary responsibility (OPR).  The evidence of record indicates the
applicant was  relieved  from  active  duty  on  30  Sep  05  and  his
entitlements  to  ship  and  store  his  HHG  at  government   expense
terminated one year from that date.  However, since he placed his  HHG
in non-temporary storage two days prior  to  the  termination  of  his
entitlements, the government paid for the  storage  until  30  Nov  06
while the lot was being converted to the applicant’s expense.  He  has
not  presented  evidence  which  shows  to  our  satisfaction  he  was
improperly advised regarding the storage of his HHG, or  that  he  met
the criteria for an additional extension of his entitlement  to  store
his HHG at government expense.  In view of the foregoing, and  in  the
absence of evidence the applicant was treated differently than  others
similarly situated, we agree with the recommendation of  the  OPR  and
adopt its rationale as the basis for our decision that  the  applicant
has failed to sustain his  burden  of  establishing  he  has  suffered
either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, we find  no  compelling
basis 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC
2007-00602 in Executive Session on 23 Aug 07, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
      Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Feb 07, w/attachments.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, JPPSO-SAT/CC, dated 30 Apr 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 May 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 30 May 07.





                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair