RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02715
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be compensated for his Personally Procured Move (PPM), as
briefed to him by Hickam Traffic Management Office (TMO).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The TMO incorrectly used low cost rates to counsel him on his
PPM application, rather than the newly implemented Best Value
rates. As such, the counselor incorrectly estimated the amount
of compensation he would receive for a Do-it-Yourself (DITY)
move. He would not have agreed to a DITY move had he known the
correct rate provided no incentive and resulted in extra costs.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal
letter, a letter from the Commander, and other forms associated
with his move.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in
the grade of senior master sergeant.
On 6 May 10, pursuant to a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) move
from Hickam AFB, HI to Beale AFB, CA, the applicant was counseled
on PPMs. The applicant completed a DD Form 2278, Application for
Do-It-Yourself Move and Counseling Checklist, and was quoted an
estimated incentive payment of $17,689.20 to personally procure
his move. Based on that amount, the applicant was given an
advance payment of $10,613.52.
The applicant personally arranged to have his household goods
(HHG) transported at a cost of $4,907.72. Under the Defense
Personal Property System (DPS), the total incentive payment
authorized was $10,263.61. Since the applicant received an
advanced allowance of $10,613.52, he owed the government
$1,688.88. The applicant applied for a remission of the debt,
which was approved.
Effective 1 Apr 10, change 283, to the Joint Federal Travel
Regulation (JFTR) requires that Government Constructed Cost (GCC)
used to determine the incentive payments in PPM be based on best
value versus the low cost charges.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
PPA HQ/DD recommends denial. DD states the JFTR requires that a
members incentive be based upon 95 percent of the GCC, and at
the time of the applicants shipment, the GCC was based upon the
best value rates reflected in DPS. The applicants incentive
payment under the DPS system after taxes was $8,924.64. His
total payment to the contractor was $4,907.72. Although he did
not receive as much incentive as he was initially advised, he did
not lose any money on the PPM. The applicant applied for and was
approved for a remission of the debt established for the excess
advance payment he received.
The complete ECAF evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 15 Jul 11, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a
response has not been received (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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice warranting
the relief sought in this application. Although it does appear
the applicant was miscounseled regarding the amount of
reimbursement he could expect to receive for a PPM, he was fully
compensated for his move and in reality received a de facto
incentive through remission of the debt he incurred for the
excess advance he initially received. We believe this
constitutes proper and fitting relief. Therefore, we agree with
the opinion and recommendation of PPA HQ/DD and adopt its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice warranting further
action by this Board. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we 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 Docket Number
BC-2010-02715 in Executive Session on 16 Nov 11, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Vice Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jul 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, PPA HQ/DD, dated 29 Jun 11.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jul 11.
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01577
ECAF states the JFTR requires that a members incentive be based upon 95 percent of the GCC, and at the time of the applicants shipment, the GCC was based upon the best value rates reflected in the DPS. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C). Although it does appear the applicant was miscounseled regarding the amount of reimbursement he could expect to receive for a PPM, he was fully compensated for his move and in reality received a de facto incentive through remission...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02483
He would not have done a DITY move had he known the correct rate provided no incentive and resulted in extra costs. On 2 Apr 12, PPA HQ ECAF amended paragraph 6 of their original Air Force evaluation to read should the Board choose to provide the applicant the relief he is seeking, recommend the records be changed to reflect that under competent authority, the PPM was processed on 1 Apr 10 resulting in the utilization of low cost rates under the Transportation Operational Personal...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01499
The applicant completed a DD Form 2278, Application for Do-it-Yourself Move and Counseling Checklist, and was quoted an estimated incentive payment of $19,524.78 to personally procure his move. Based on that amount, the applicant was given an advance payment of $12,331.44. ECAF recommends the applicant be reimbursed for any funds personally expended in excess of the authorized GCC.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03079
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03079 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be compensated for his personally procured move (PPM) as briefed to him by the Hickam Traffic Management Office (TMO), or in the alternative cover the actual cost of the PPM. He was only compensated $8,370.24, which did not cover the total move...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01260
She would not have done a DITY move had she known the correct rate provided no incentive and resulted in extra costs. Effective 1 April 2010, change 283 to the JFTR requires that Government Constructed Costs (GCC) used to determine the incentive payments in PPM be based on best value versus the low cost charges. Although it does appear the applicant was miscounseled regarding the amount of reimbursement she could expect to receive for a Personally Procured Move, she was fully...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01334
She would not have done a DITY move had she known the correct rate provided no incentive and resulted in extra costs. Effective 1 April 2010, change 283 to the JFTR requires that Government Constructed Costs (GCC) used to determine the incentive payments in PPM be based on best value versus the low cost charges. Although it does appear the applicant was miscounseled regarding the amount of reimbursement she could expect to receive for a Personally Procured Move, she was fully...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01032
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01032 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be compensated for his Personally Procured Move (PPM) as briefed to him by the Hickam Transportation Management Office (TMO). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The TMO office incorrectly...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01423
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded by stating that he did not receive the briefing regarding the change in the JFTR until 25 Jun 10, two full months after the change. The TMO agreed to allow him to cancel the PPM. Although it does appear the applicant was miscounseled regarding the amount of reimbursement he could expect to receive for a Personally Procured Move, he was fully compensated for...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01517
The applicants PPM was initiated on 14 Apr 10 via DD Form 2278, Application for Do-It-Yourself Move and Counseling Checklist, thereby requiring the re-calculation of his PPM from the TOPS estimate to the DPS estimate. When the PPM was re-calculated under the required DPS, the applicants incentive payment was reduced to $15,773.80. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: PPA HQ/DD recommends that partial relief be granted, indicating the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01139
The complete DD evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant stated the advisory falsely states that he did not lose any money. The recommendation only considers the gross amount and reimbursable expenses. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting the relief sought in this application.