RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01423
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be compensated for his Personally Procured Move (PPM) as
briefed to him by Hickam Transportation Management Office (TMO).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The TMO office 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 done 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 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 in the Regular Air Force serving in the grade
of master sergeant.
On 2 April 2010, pursuant to Permanent Change of Station orders,
from Hickam AFB, HI to Eglin AFB FL, the applicant was counseled
on PPMs. The applicant was quoted $17,706.70 as the Estimated
Gross Incentive to personally procure his move. Based on that
amount, the applicant was given an advance payment of
$10,624.02.
On 6 August 2010, the Eglin TMO computed the applicants actual
cost as 9,584.38. Since the applicant received an advance, he
owed the government, $1,582.68. The applicant applied for a
remittance of debt, which the Air Force approved.
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.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
PPA HQ/ECAF recommends denial. ECAF states the JFTR requires
the members incentive be based on 95 percent of the GCC, and at
the time of the applicants shipment, the GCC was based on best
value rates. The applicants total moving expenses totaled
$10,624.02. 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
in the amount of $1,582.68.
The complete ECAF evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
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 following key points are made in his rebuttal:
a. After being briefed, he asked if he could cancel his PPM.
The TMO agreed to allow him to cancel the PPM. He immediately
contacted the contract company and explained his situation; the
company also agreed it was unfair to make him continue with the
shipment. However, the company told him that if his container
was not already on the ship they would cancel the shipment.
Unfortunately, for him, the container was in the middle of the
ship and could not be easily accessed. He then went back to the
TMO office and told them he had to continue with the PPM.
b. He went to the base legal office for counseling. The legal
office agreed that the situation was wrong, but from a legal
standpoint, there was nothing that could be done. On 26 Jun 10,
he contacted his Congressional representatives for assistance;
however, they too agreed that this was wrong and never should
have happened; but, there was nothing they could do.
c. He applied for a debt remission and was approved; however,
the Defense Accounting and Finance Service (DFAS) have already
started collecting the debt. He is working with DFAS to resolve
this issue.
_________________________________________________________________
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. 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 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/ECAF 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-2011-01423 in Executive Session on 9 Feb 12, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Vice Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2011-
01423 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Apr 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. PPA HQ/ECAF, Letter, dated 1 Aug 11.
Exhibit C. SAF/MRBR, Letter, dated 19 Aug 2011.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, undated.
Vice Chair
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-2011-01260
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-2011-01032
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-2011-01992
Had he been briefed correctly, he would not have agreed to a PPM that provided no incentive and resulted in excess costs. 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 his move and in reality received a de facto incentive through remission of the debt incurred for the excess advance initially received. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 11.
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-2011-03079
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-2011-01499
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 | CY2010 | BC 2010 02715
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. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C).
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-2011-01139
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.