MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 15 January 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001059469

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson
Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Member
Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

---

APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the debt he incurred for storing and shipping overweight household goods (HHG) be cancelled.

APPLICANT STATES: That before he authorized delivery of his HHG he was advised he would owe $2,300, not $8,000. He never received any reenlistment bonuses during his 20 years of service (he always missed them by a few months). He kept most of their HHG stored at their own expense over the years, only having them stored by the Army for the few months it took them to find a house in Virginia after retirement. After their first of three overseas tours, when they had a bad experience shipping a vehicle, the government did not have that expense, either. Since that was their third and last overseas tour, they bought a lot of furniture and costly souvenirs. Since Transportation told them they could hold their HHG for one year if they brought all their stored goods from Colorado to Kansas, so they could make one shipment, they made three trips at their own expense to take all of their goods to Kansas and store them until the scheduled pick-up date. They had packed their crystals, china, glassware, and other breakables themselves with extreme care. The packers insisted on repacking everything themselves. They used three huge sheets of paper to roll around everything, even knick-knacks, which made them even more extremely overweight and required many more boxes (also more weight). He rented a truck and brought much of their heavy stuff themselves to Virginia, of which most of the expense was not reimbursed by the government. They got a letter saying they would owe an estimated $2,105.32, plus delivery expense. They then got another letter saying they owed $7,866.97. He feels this $5,760.00 jump, in fact, the entire overweight amount, is not justified, after not receiving any reenlistment bonuses, or shipping vehicles, or storing goods at the government’s expense for 19 years and moving a lot at their own expense.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 May 1980. He served three tours in Germany, the last one from January 1996 to January 1999. Prior to this overseas tour he was assigned to Fort Carson, CO. In February 1999, he was reassigned to Fort Riley, KS. His enlistment contracts verify he was never entitled to a reenlistment bonus.

It appears the applicant’s HHG were packed in Kansas around 15 March 2000. On 8 May 2000, he was informed that he had exceeded his authorized weight allowance for the with-dependent entitlement for HHG at government expense. His total weight was 27,260 pounds, less 10 percent for internal packing for a net weight of 24,534 pounds. He was authorized to ship 11,000 pounds. He was overweight by 13,534 pounds, plus 11.11 percent for packing for a net excess weight of 15,038 pounds. He was informed that he owed excess storage costs of $2,612.87 and that he would also be required to pay excess weight cost of shipping, which would be deducted from his retired pay.
The applicant retired on 1 June 2000 in the rank of Staff Sergeant, E-6.

The applicant’s HHG were picked up around 3 August 2000 and delivered around 14 August 2000. The total cost of the shipment was $9,507.36 of which $5,254.10 was the excess weight shipping cost. On 23 August 2000, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service – Denver Center (DFAS-DE) was notified that the applicant’s retired pay should be charged for total excess overweight costs of $7,866.97.

On 28 September 2001, in response to a Congressional inquiry, DFAS informed the Congressman that the applicant’s original debt was $7,866.97. Interest and administrative fees brought the total debt to $8,225.06. The applicant made three voluntary payments on the debt of $235.78 per month. When he failed to make a payment in May 2001, his retired pay account was offset three times for $292.25 each time and would again be offset on 1 October 2001. DFAS would consider a reduced payment agreement if the applicant would complete and return a Department of Justice Financial Status Form and Promissory Note to Pay in Installments.

In the processing of the case, an advisory opinion was obtained from DFAS-DE. DFAS-DE noted that the applicant requested a waiver of his indebtedness but his debt was not eligible for waiver consideration and that there is no evidence that he rebutted the excess charges from the date of notification until the debt was established.

A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment or rebuttal. He did not respond within the given time frame.

DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations and opinions, it is concluded:

1. The Board understands the applicant’s argument that over the years he kept most of his HHG stored at his own expense. However, it was his own personal decision to do so. The government did not require him to expend his own funds doing so. The Board regrets that he never received any reenlistment bonuses. It was an unfortunate matter of timing that is not too uncommon; however, reenlistment bonuses are incentives not an entitlement. The fact that he only once shipped a personal vehicle overseas was also a personal decision.

2. Over the applicant’s 20 years in service he had several opportunities to ship and/or store HHG at government expense and should have been briefed as to his weight entitlements, even if he chose not to ship or store anything at government expense at those times. Even if he did not earlier know his authorized weight allowance, as a noncommissioned officer on his last tour in Germany, knowing his retirement date was coming up in a few years, he could have queried the local transportation office to discover his allowance prior to buying so much furniture.

3. The Board understands the packer’s insistence on repacking his HHG. The applicant would not get reimbursed for breakage or damage if the packers did not do so.

4. Before the applicant authorized delivery of his HHG he was advised he would owe about $2,300 (in storage costs). However, he was also advised that he would also be required to pay an excess weight cost of shipping. Shipping is generally more expensive than storage so the debt should have come as no surprise to him.

5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__inw___ __hof___ __dph___ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059469
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20020115
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	128.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.