RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01577 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be entitled to reimbursement of the Household goods (HHG) 
shipment of his professional books, papers, and equipment 
(PBP&E). 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The HHG shipment of his PBP&E was not annotated properly on his 
Descriptive Inventories Sheet, dated 6 Jun 07. Short notice 
changes in orders, language barriers and his mistake in not 
checking to ensure the instructions he gave to the movers were 
followed resulted in his PBP&E not being properly annotated and 
his HHG being overweight. During his permanent change of station 
(PCS) from Germany to XXXXXXX, (AL), he originally estimated 500 
pounds of PBP&E on his application. However, there were no 
items annotated as PBP&E on his HHG Descriptive Inventories or 
United States (US) Government Bill of Lading. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement and a copy of his HHG shipment documentation. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Based on the available evidence and that provided by the Air 
Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), the applicant was 
reassigned on a PCS from Germany and diverted to XXXXXXX, AL. 
He effected two personal property shipments in conjunction with 
his PCS, an unaccompanied baggage (UB) shipment weighing 1,070 
pounds under Government Bill of Lading (GBL) JQ-732648 and a HHG 
shipment weighing 18,920 pounds under GBL JQ-732646. The 
combined weight of the shipments exceeded the applicant’s 
prescribed weight allowance of 17,000 pounds. The Air Force 
Cost Adjudication Function (ECAF) initiated a debt against the 
applicant in the amount of $1,106.39 for exceeding his 
authorized weight allowance. 

 


________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

JPPA-SAT/ECAF recommends denial, stating, in part, although the 
process of the notification of the excess cost to the applicant 
was flawed, (funds being taken from pay without prior 
notification) the debt for exceeding his authorized weight 
allowance was in fact valid. The Air Force supplement to the 
JFTR provides specific requirements that must be met in order 
for PBP&E to be credited, and the applicant did not meet those 
requirements. 

 

JPPA-ECAF’s adjudication section reviewed the case file and 
determined the debt was correct, advising that previous or 
subsequent shipment weights could not be used in determining the 
excess cost for the shipment in question. In order to receive 
credit for PBP&E, the Air Force Supplement to the Joint Federal 
Travel Regulation (JFTR) requires that it be separately packed 
marked, weighed, and a clear description of articles entered on 
the descriptive inventory prepared at the time of pick up. 
There was no annotation of PBP&E on the shipping documents, 
therefore, no credit could be allowed. Additionally, the 
applicant signed the inventory acknowledging that the inventory 
was correct. The applicant disagreed with the determination, 
deeming it an unacceptable response and a superficial assessment 
of his case. ECAF reviewed his rebuttal and again determined 
the debt was correct, advising that the administrative errors or 
untimely notification of indebtedness could not be used as a 
basis in which to eliminate the excess cost. The applicant’s 
rights were determined by law, as implemented in the appropriate 
regulations. 

 

The applicant is requesting the 22 items in his HHG Descriptive 
Inventory, equating to a constructive weight of 2,068 pounds, be 
annotated as PBP&E. The JFTR advises that PBP&E must be 
declared at origin and documented in accordance with (IAW) 
agency/service transportation policy and procedures. HHG not 
declared and/or documented as PBP&E prior to the HHG 
transportation is part of the HHG counted against the applicable 
weight allowance. It states that if a carrier fails to record 
and weigh the items, credit may be given if the transportation 
management office (TMO) documents the items and weight upon 
delivery. 

 

The complete JPPA-SAT/CC evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 13 Aug 10 for review and comment within 30 days. 
Subsequently, the applicant notified the Board of a change of 


address and a copy of the evaluation was forwarded to his new 
address on 19 Nov 10. The applicant’s case was considered by 
the Board on 14 Dec 10, but held in abeyance pending his 
response to the evaluation. However, as of this date, no 
response has been received by this office (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 error or 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 JPPA-SAT/ECAF and adopt its 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 basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-01577 in Executive Session on 14 December 2010, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-01577 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Apr 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, JPPA-SAT/ECAF, dated 6 Aug 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Aug 10. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair