RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02483 

 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). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 request, the applicant provides a letter from 
his commander, and other documents 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 lieutenant colonel. 

 

On 6 May 2010, pursuant to his Permanent Change of Station (PCS) 
move from Hickam AFB, HI to Langley AFB VA, 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 $19,151.00 to 
personally procure his move. 

 

The applicant personally arranged to have his household goods 
(HHG) transported at a cost of $12,367.59. He received an 
advance operating allowance of $11,490.60. Under the Defense 
Personal Property System (DPS), the total incentive payment 
authorized was $13,527.39. Upon completion of the PPM, the 
applicant received the incentive payment under DPS in the amount 
of $13,527.39, bringing the total received for this move to 
$25,017.99 (he should have only been paid $2,036.79, since he 


had already received an advance operating allowance in the 
amount of $11,490.60), The Financial Service Officer initiated a 
debt against the applicant in the amount ofof $11,490.60. The 
applicant applied for a remission of the debt, which was 
approved. 

 

Effective 1 April 2010, change 283, to the Joint Federal Travel 
Regulation (JFTR) required 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/ECAF recommends denial. The JFTR requires that a 
member’s incentive be based upon 95 percent of the GCC, and at 
the time of the applicant’s shipment, the GCC was based upon the 
“best value” rates reflected in the DPS. 

 

Further, ECAF recommends the appropriate agency initiate a debt 
against the applicant for all funds received in excess of the 
authorized incentive amount of $13,527.39. The actual cost of 
the move was $12,367.59; therefore, the applicant did not lose 
any money. 

 

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 Property 
System TOPS, and a GCC of $25,140.04. Since the applicant 
received a total of $25,017.99, he did not receive funds in 
excess of his authorized allowance and no debt is assessed 
against him.” 

 

The complete ECAF evaluation, with addendum, are at Exhibits C 
and E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 21 October 2011 and 17 April 12, for review and 
comment within 30 days (Exhibits D and F). As of this date, this 
office has not received a response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 


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. Notwithstanding the 
applicant’s claim of miscounseling, it appears he has been 
compensated at the rate authorized under the Transportation 
Operational Personal Property Standard System (TOPS) rather than 
DPS. This has resulted in the applicant being compensated at 
the higher rate he claims he was counseled he would receive. We 
note that PPA HQ/ECAF recommends that the appropriate agency 
initiate a debt collection against the applicant for all funds 
paid in excess of the authorized incentive amount of $13,527.39. 
However, such action is not within the purview of this Board as 
it would be considered adverse to the applicant. As such, there 
is no record to correct unless the appropriate agency initiates 
a debt against the applicant. Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis 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-2011-02483 in Executive Session on 21 June 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Vice Chair 

Member 

 Member 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-02483 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 June 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, PPA HQ/ECAF, dated 6 October 2011. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 October 2011. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, PPA HQ/ECAF, dated 2 April 2012. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBC, Letter, dated 17 April 2012. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Vice Chair