RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01131 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

The debt for his home-of-record (HOR) move be reduced. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The information he received during his Household Goods (HHG) 
counseling did not inform him of the significant costs he would 
assume for his HOR move. The initial cost estimate for his 
decision to relocate to another location that was not his HOR was 
$297.00. Had he known the cost of moving an additional 200 miles 
beyond his authorized limit would cost him $6,479.30, he would 
have made other arrangements. He was informed after the move 
that he was 2,030 pounds over his limit which was too late to 
make any changes. He was not notified for over two years of the 
difference in cost. This debt has caused a financial hardship on 
his family and will take years to pay back. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement and a copy of his claim protest. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant was honorably discharged from active duty effective 
14 June 2007 in the grade of major (O-4). His HOR is indicated 
as Warroad, Minnesota. 

 

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 
military service records, are contained in the Air Force 
evaluation at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

PPA HQ/CCC recommends denial. CCC states that per Special Order 
A-055, dated 18 March 2007, the applicant was relieved from 
active duty effective 1 May 2007, for the purpose of separation 
from the Air Force. Incident to his separation, he initiated a 


DD Form 1299, Application for Shipment and/or Storage of 
Personnel Property, through the Traffic Management Flight (TMF) 
at Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas, to have his HHG shipped. He 
was authorized to ship HHG to his HOR in Warroad, Minnesota; 
however, he elected to have his HHG shipped to Lancaster, 
Pennsylvania, under Bill of Lading (BL) ZX-653433 on 12 June 
2008. In June 2010, PPA HQ/ECAF initiated a debt in the amount 
of $6,479.30 through the Defense Finance and Accounting Service 
(DFAS) against the applicant for shipping HHG in excess of the 
authorized weight allowance and for shipping to a location other 
than the authorized destination. 

 

The applicant filed a rebuttal, dated 2 November 2010, stating 
that he received an estimate of $297.00 for excess cost when 
scheduling his move, which was significantly lower than the 
$6,500.00 actual debt. PPA HQ/ECAF reviewed the case and 
determined the debt was indeed correct. They advised the 
applicant that the difference between the estimated cost and the 
actual cost was due in part to the estimate being for only 10,800 
pounds and the actual weight being 20,030 pounds. Also, he was 
liable for the cost difference between having his authorized 
weight allowance shipped to his HOR, and the cost expended by the 
Government to have his actual weight shipped to his selected 
destination. Furthermore, not being informed of the debt in a 
timely manner is not a basis for relieving him of his liability 
to reimburse the Government for funds expended in excess of those 
authorized. 

 

CCC indicates that although the estimate was much lower than the 
actual cost, it cannot be used as a substitute for actual costs. 
Factors such as the actual weight, almost twice the amount as the 
estimate, exceeding the authorized weight allowance, and the 
system selecting a mover with a higher rate contributed 
significantly to the actual higher costs. These additional 
factors were not known until after the packing, pickup, weighing, 
and shipment of his HHG. The fact that this information was not 
known up front does not relieve the applicant of his 
responsibility for reimbursing the Government for all costs 
expended over the amount authorized. 

 

The complete PPA HQ/CCC evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He does not dispute his responsibility for the additional cost of 
moving beyond the mileage and the additional weight. What he 
does dispute is the amount that he is responsible for. The 
majority of the cost comes from the Line Haul Rate (LHR). The 
estimate of $297.00 given to him was calculated based on the 
location in Pennsylvania. The only mistake made on the estimate 
was the authorized weight. The rate calculated after the move 
almost doubled. The cost of packing for the additional 2,030 


pounds increased significantly. He is being asked to cover 
approximately 30 percent of the total packing costs for an 
additional 2,030 pounds. In addition, the rate for the fuel 
charge changed from the estimate he received. He is being asked 
to pay for 30 percent of the total cost for an additional 200 
miles of the total 1800 miles. They gave him an estimate for 
moving to Pennsylvania, but did not use the rates quoted to him. 
He based his decision on the information he was provided knowing 
there would be additional cost. However, what he is asked to pay 
now is far beyond what was expected. It seems unreasonable to 
give a member a cost estimate with specific rates and then use a 
completely different set of rates and expect the member to be 
responsible for it. Everyone should be charged based on the 
rates they were quoted in order to give them an opportunity to 
plan and budget for their family. He is willing to pay some of 
the additional cost, but, it seems the actual rates used were 
never disclosed to him. 

 

The applicant’s complete rebuttal 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 an error or an injustice. After 
reviewing the evidence of record, the Board is not persuaded that 
the applicant was improperly charged with a debt as a result of 
the shipment of his Household Goods (HHG). While the applicant 
attributes the imposed debt to having been miscounselled on the 
estimated costs and indicates he would have made other 
arrangements had he received a better estimate of costs, it 
appears he did not provide all of the details related to his move 
to receive a more accurate estimate. We note he shipped almost 
double his authorized weight allowance and then to a different 
location than originally indicated. Therefore, we agree with the 
opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
or injustice. 

 

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 issue(s) 
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-2011-01131 in Executive Session on 1 November 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-01131: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Mar 11, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Letter, PPA HQ/ECAF, dated 24 Jan 11, w/atchs. 

Exhibit C. Letter, PPA HQ/CCC, dated 4 Aug 11, w/atchs. 

Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Aug 11. 

Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Sep 11. 

 

 

 

 

Panel Chair