RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00529 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be compensated for his personally procured move (PPM) as 
briefed by his Traffic Management Flight (TMF). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The TMF 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. Had he not been miscounseled, he would not have agreed to 
a PPM that would have provided no incentive and resulted in 
excess costs. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides documents 
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 master sergeant (MSgt). 

 

The applicant was counseled on doing a personally procured move 
in conjunction with his permanent change of station (PCS) move 
from Hickam AFB, HI to Beale AFB, CA. On 9 June 2010, the 
applicant completed a DD Form 2278, Application for Do-it-
Yourself Move and Counseling Checklist, and was quoted an 
estimated incentive payment of $15,404.35 to personally procure 
his move. Based on that amount, the applicant was given an 
advance payment of $9,729.06. 

 

The applicant personally arranged to have his HHG transported at 
a cost of $7,489.58 (to include $51.71, for the purchase of 
packing materials). Under the Defense Personal Property System 
(DPS), the maximum payment authorized for shipping the actual 


weight of 11,000 pounds was $9,163.94. Since the applicant 
received an advanced allowance of $9,729.06, he owed the 
government $983.71. 

 

The applicant applied for a remission of the debt, and it was 
approved by the Air Force. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

PPA HQ/CC recommends denial, indicating that federal law 
prohibits paying any member more for shipping goods than it would 
have cost the government to ship the goods. Change 283, to the 
JFTR, effective 15 Apr 10, required that Government Constructed 
Cost (GCC) used to determine the incentive payments in PPMs be 
based on “best value” charges, versus the “low cost” charges. 
The Personal Property Activity Headquarters (PPA HQ) directed the 
use of the new PPM module featured in the 1 Apr 10 release of 
DPS, which coincided with changes to the JFTR and execution of 
the “best value” cost methodology. This change significantly 
reduced the rates for PPMs between Hawaii and the Continental 
United States (CONUS). In addition to the change 283 of the 
JFTR, AF/A4L posted a revised Attachment 14 to the AF Supplement 
to the JFTR on 15 Apr 10 to reiterate the new requirement. Also, 
PPA HQ transmitted to the field an advisory requiring all AF PPMs 
processed in TOPS before 15 Apr 10 be closed out in TOPs (paid at 
the low cost rate), and the PPMs processed on 15 Apr 10 or after 
to be processed in DPS (paid at the best value rate. 

 

The complete PPA HQ/CC evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He believes the DD Form 2278 constituted a binding agreement 
between the US Government and him and the government defaulted on 
that agreement in violation of the intent of the Antideficiency 
Act, Fiscal Law and American values. The recommendation to deny 
his claim based on the fact he did not lose money is unjust and 
dishonorable. He did not go into this venture to save the 
government money, he did it as an investment with profit 
potential. The fact he was able to mitigate his loss and turn a 
small profit does not make what the Air Force did right. In 
addition, the government falsified the DD Form 2278, dated 
23 Aug 10. The falsification of the document by the PPM office 
was to enable his travel voucher to be processed. This required 
him to acknowledge responsibilities, false travel advance amounts 
and agreements, as if they were prior to conducting a PPM, when 
in-fact the PPM had already been completed. Lastly, the 
government has already admitted to "Significant Injustice caused 
to him, beyond his control." For the BCMR to not entitle his 


family to the agreed upon compensation based on the fact that he 
mitigated his losses, would be unjust and only create disdain 
toward how he may view the Air Force and how it's treating its 
people. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
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 an error or injustice warranting the 
relief sought in this application. While it’s apparent the 
applicant was miscounseled regarding the amount of reimbursement 
he could expect to receive for a Personally Procured Move, the 
issue before the Board is whether additional relief beyond that 
granted, that is remission of the established debt, is warranted. 
We note that Title 37 prohibits payment of a monetary allowance 
greater than what the cost would have been to the government. 
Since the rates 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/CC 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-00529 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 1 Feb 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. PPA HQ/CC, Letter, dated 18 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit C. SAF/MRBR, Letter, dated 9 May 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 17 May 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Vice Chair