RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02500

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED: YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive the necessary documentation for approval of the 
personally procured move (PPM) of his household goods (HHG) 
during a permanent change of station (PCS) move.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  His PPM voucher was recently disapproved by local and 
regional transportation management office (TMO) officials on the 
basis that he transported his HHG before he received orders, and 
he did not first obtain a letter-in-lieu of orders authorizing 
the movement of HHG prior to issuance of orders.  However, he 
believes the PPM should be reimbursed for three primary reasons:

	a.  HHG transportation before a PCS order is issued and is 
inherently authorized in the Joint Federal Travel Regulation 
(JFTR) as long as the government does not incur any additional 
cost.  

	b.  He did not receive accurate or effective counseling 
about specific JFTR and associated Air Force supplement 
requirements from either his losing TMO or military personnel 
flight (MPF) prior to moving his HHG.  

	c.  His PPM was executed in accordance with the intent of 
JFTR regulations.  

2.  He received initial assignment notification on 
1 November 2011, informing him of his selection for a PCS to 
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to attend Intermediate Developmental 
Education (IDE).  As directed in his initial notification 
message, he accomplished the assignment briefing and signed the 
Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) associated with IDE.  On 
18 November 2011, he received a change RIP, placing him in the 
winter IDE class at Fort Leavenworth with a report not later 
than date (RNLTD) of 4 January 2013.  As a result of his 
reassignment to the winter class, he elected to move his family 
to their home of record in Colorado during the summer of 2012 to 
avoid sending his children to three different schools in two 
years.  Prior to moving his family and HHG via PPM, he visited 
both the TMO and the MPF outbound assignments section in early 
June 2012.  He made inquiries to both agencies regarding moving 
his family and HHG prior to his official PCS order date.  The 
TMO officials simply told him to save his receipts, and did not 
reference the JFTR or direct him to the JFTR and the associated 
supplements to identify specific regulations for movement of HHG 
prior to receipt of orders.  The MPF officials told him they 
would look into it but never got back to him.  

3.  However, he had no personal reservations about moving his 
family and HHG prior to receiving orders because of the multiple 
official sources advising him of his impending issuance of 
orders and the practical knowledge that as an IDE-select 
assigned to the winter class there was no realistic alternative 
for an assignment change prior to his RNLTD to Fort Leavenworth.  
Consequently, he moved his dependents and all of his HHG to 
Aurora, Colorado during a one-month span, from 27 June to 
26 July 2012.  Following the move, he remained at Nellis AFB, 
received final orders for his PCS to Fort Leavenworth on 
18 October 2012, departed Nellis AFB on 7 December 2012, and 
arrived at Fort Leavenworth on 4 January 2013.  He did not move 
any HHG from Nellis to Fort Leavenworth.  

4.  After he arrived at Fort Leavenworth, the Whiteman AFB TMO 
and the Colorado Springs regional TMO disapproved his PPM 
voucher on the basis that he moved his HHG prior to the issuance 
of orders.  TMO directed him to contact his outbound MPF to 
coordinate for an after-the-fact letter-in-lieu of orders to 
authorize his movement of HHG prior to issuance of orders.  
During his subsequent coordination with outbound MPF was the 
first time a TMO or MPF official informed him that movement of 
HHG prior to receiving orders was covered by the JFTR.  The MPF 
provided amendments to his orders reflecting his dependents' 
original address in Las Vegas instead of the new Colorado 
address and the timeframe that he conducted the move. 
Unfortunately, because authorization for movement of HHG prior 
to receiving orders is specifically a JFTR authority, the 
amendments failed to provide adequate documentation and his 
voucher was again disapproved.  

5.  His family’s relocation to their home of record in Colorado 
was in accordance with paragraph U5218 of the JFTR.  The 
multiple official advisements of his upcoming assignment, 
including RIPs, assignment briefing, and ADSC agreement, seemed 
to meet the intent of paragraphs U5201C and U5330-G1A.  
Unfortunately, he was not advised of the requirement for a 
letter-in-lieu of orders identified in the AF supplement to the 
JFTR on his initial visit to the Nellis TMO.  He would have 
gladly coordinated for a letter-in-lieu of orders and signed the 
written agreements before moving his HHG if he was notified of 
the requirement, or simply directed to the JFTR and the AF 
supplement to research the requirements himself when he made his 
initial visits to TMO and the MPF.  He recently requested Nellis 
TMO provide him with documentation validating his visit to their 
office in June 2012, assuming they could verify his visit using 
their sign-in logs.  Unfortunately, Nellis TMO only maintains 
historic sign-in logs for 60 days, and was unable to fulfil his 
request.  

6.  He understands that it is his obligation as an officer to 
know and comply with the AFIs and regulations, but he relied on 
the experts in the respective supporting agencies to point him 
in the right direction so he could do the required research.  
Ultimately, the JFTR clearly intends to provide military members 
with the flexibility to do what is best for their families as 
long as the government does not incur any additional cost. He 
feels that his case is directly in line with the intent of the 
JFTR regulations.  The cost of his PPM to transport his HHG to 
Colorado is less than the government would have paid to move his 
HHG to Fort Leavenworth. This PPM claim is his only HHG 
transportation claim for this PCS.  

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal 
statement, and copies of his AF Form 899, Request and 
Authorization for Permanent Change of Station – Military, and 
support documents pertaining to the PPM of his HHG.  

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 Major, O-4.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force at Exhibit C.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  PPA/ECAF recommends denial.  ECAF states the applicant 
indicates he should be reimbursed for three primary reasons, 
however, the applicant has provided no documentation 
substantiating inaccurate/ineffective counseling from the TMO 
and MPF.  Per Special Order AG-007119, dated 18 October 2012, 
the applicant was reassigned on a PCS from Nellis AFB Nevada, to 
Ft Leavenworth, Kansas, with a report not later than date of 
4 January 2013.  He initially received notification of permanent 
change of station on 1 November 2011, reassigning  him to Ft 
Leavenworth, Kansas, reporting not later than 22 June 2012.  A 
change was issued on 18 November 2011, reflecting a report not 
later than of 4 January 2013.  The applicant states he chose to 
relocate his dependents  and HHG to Aurora, Colorado, versus Ft 
Leavenworth, Kansas, and in Jun-Jul 2012, he performed a PPM of 
his HHG to Aurora Colorado.  Upon arriving at his PCS location 
and attempting to receive payment for the PPM, he was advised 
there was no authorization  for payment, as the PPM occurred 
prior to the issuance of his PCS order.  

2.  Although HHG entitlements are inherently authorized in the 
JFTR, the orders establishes the conditions for official travel 
and transportation at government expense, and provides the basis 
for transportation payment/reimbursement, and is required to be 
issued before travel/transportation is performed.  JFTR, para 
U5330-G.l, allows transportation of HHG before the issuance of 
orders if supported by: a statement from the PCS AO or 
designated representative that the member was advised before 
such an order was issued that it would be issued; applicant 
signed a written agreement to pay additional costs incurred for 
transportation to another point if the new PDS named in the 
order is different than initially reflected; and written 
agreement to pay the entire transportation  cost if an order is 
not later issued to authorize the transportation.  

The complete PPA/ECAF evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He does not believe that the PPA/ECAF recommendation to deny his 
petition is justified.  ECAF recommends denial of his petition 
because he did not coordinate for his PPM before issuance of 
orders, and because he did not provide any documentation 
substantiating deficient counseling from TMO and MPF.  However, 
he did attempt to coordinate with TMO before conducting his PPM.  
He received deficient counseling when the TMO agent failed to 
reference the JFTR or direct him to the JFTR, which would have 
informed him to obtain the necessary documentation.  
Furthermore, he attempted to acquire a record of his visit to 
TMO to substantiate his claim that he solicited counseling 
before conducting the PPM.  However, the Nellis TMO does not 
maintain historical records beyond 60 days.  

He humbly requests the Board approve his petition.  He has been 
a dedicated servant of the Air Force for over 13 years.  His PCS 
from Nellis entitled a household move.  However, his family 
needs required him to conduct a PPM before receiving final 
orders.  He attempted to coordinate with TMO before initiating 
the PPM, and did not receive effective counseling.  He did not 
file any additional household moving claims for his PCS from 
Nellis.  If his request is denied, he will not be reimbursed for 
the PPM, which will result in his personally funding the 
movement of his household goods, which is a standard PCS 
entitlement.  He requests that the Board consider these factors 
as his case is reviewed.  He also requests he be notified, in 
advance, of the intent to deny his petition so he may be present 
when the decision is rendered.  

The applicant’s complete response 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice that would 
warrant relief in this case.  We took notice of the applicant's 
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; and note 
the Air Force office of primary responsibility recommends 
denial; however, household goods (HHG) transportation 
entitlements are inherently authorized in the Joint Federal 
Travel Regulation (JFTR) (JFTR).  In this respect, we believe 
the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to find it 
reasonable that he would have procured a statement from the 
permanent change of station (PCS) authorizing official or 
completed a letter-in-lieu of orders and signed the written 
agreements before moving his HHG.  Accordingly, we believe that 
he should receive payment for his PPM, with costs not to exceed 
authorized PCS allowances.  Therefore, we recommend his records 
be corrected as indicated below.  

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that his AF 
Form 899, Request and Authorization for Permanent Change of 
Station – Military, Special Order AG-007119, dated 
18 October 2012, be amended in Block 28, “Date” to reflect 
31 May 2012 rather than 18 October 2012.  

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application 
in Executive Session on 18 February 2014, under the provisions 
of AFI 36-2603:

		, Panel Chair
		, Member
		, Member

The following documentary evidence in connection with AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2013-02500 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 May 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, PPA/ECAF, dated 31 July 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 August 2013.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 August 2013.