| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas A. Pagan | Member | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member |
2. The applicant requests that his orders be back-dated to allow for reimbursement of his movement of his family and household goods (HHG).
3. The applicant states that he contacted his assignment manager in St. Louis, Missouri and was informed that his orders were cut prior to 14 June 2001, when he moved his household goods to Maryland. He sold his home in Texas on 15 June 2001 and when he received his orders, they were dated 2 July 2001 with a report date of 15 July 2001. As a result, he had been denied payment for movement of his dependents and HHG. In support of his application he submits copies of documents showing that he paid a company to pack his HHG and that he rented a truck to transport the HHGs and dependents to Maryland.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he was ordered to active duty in the rank of second lieutenant on 15 July 2001. His orders were dated 2 July 2001 and directed him to proceed to Fort Sam Houston, Texas to attend the Army Medical Officer Basic Course en route to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington D.C. The orders authorized shipment of HHG and advised him to contact his local transportation office to arrange for shipment.
5. In a previous case involving similar circumstances, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics (DCSLOG) which opined that the Per Diem Transportation and Travel Allowances Committee’s message of January 1993 authorized the services concerned, or its representative, to approve after-the-fact Do It Yourself (DITY) moves on a case-by-case basis for moves occurring after 15 January 1993. Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) delegated the authority to its major commands effective 1 December 1993.
6. Army Regulation 55-71 provides policy and procedures for the DITY method of moving personal property. It states, in pertinent part, that the DITY program is offered to military members as an alternative method of moving their HHG in which they can earn a monetary incentive payment equal to 80 percent of what it would have cost the government to move the authorized or actual HHG weight commercially, minus the DITY cost incurred. The DITY cost is the amount the government pays the contractor for providing the rental vehicle, equipment, and packing materials. The DITY program also contains provisions for storage in connection with a DITY move and payment for claims of loss and damage to personal property incurred during a move. That regulation also provides that in certain unusual circumstances, authorization to move HHG prior to issuance of orders may be authorized.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. While the Board recognizes that the applicant effected his move of HHG and dependents before he was in receipt of orders and did so without contacting a transportation office before he did so, it appears he did so based on the advice he received from the orders issuing headquarters.
2. It also appears that he conducted a DITY move without prior authorization and counseling regarding the correct procedures. However, given the circumstances in this case and the fact that he was authorized shipment of his HHG at government expense, the Board finds that he relied, to his detriment, on the information he was provided at the time, and has been denied benefits that he otherwise would have been entitled to receive, had orders been issued in a timely manner.
3. While there is no explanation in the available records to show why his orders were delayed, the Board finds it unreasonable for the Army to expect an individual to accomplish such a move between the time orders were published on 2 July 2001 and dispatched to him with a report date to his first duty station on 15 July 2001.
4. Accordingly, the Board finds that it would be in the interest of justice to authorize the applicant movement of his HHG and dependents to his permanent duty station, prior to issuance of orders, as an exception to policy.
5. The Board also finds that he should be granted an authorization to conduct a DITY move prior to issuance of orders and that he be authorized payment for such a move upon presentation of all necessary documents to the appropriate officials.
6. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was authorized shipment of HHG (in the form of a DITY move) and dependents prior to the issuance of orders, as an exception to policy, and that he be paid all monies to which he is entitled upon presentation of documentation required for such a claim.
BOARD VOTE:
__gp____ ___mm__ ___tap __ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
____George D. Paxson_____
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001061380 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/02/21 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 283 | 128.0000/DITY MOVE |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010235
He deployed to Afghanistan on 7 March 2007, he returned and received new separation orders, dated 28 May 2008, which will release him from active duty on 15 September 2008, but when he went back to the transportation office at Fort Riley, Kansas to try to claim his DITY move, they stated that he moved prior to his new separation orders being issued, therefore, he could not claim the move. The applicant provides orders, dated 8 November 2006, which originally were to release him from active...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026099
The member rents normal types of rental vehicles, equipment, moving aids, and packing material and the member performs all labor for the move. The evidence of record shows the applicant was authorized to perform a PPM from Fort Richardson to Fort Carson. It is reasonable to presume that had the applicant actually performed the move himself, without the aid of ABF, there would not have been an issue with his claim and he would have been entitled to the advance payment, as well as his full...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020109
The applicant requests payment for the portion his household goods (HHG) moved by personal vehicle during his do-it-yourself (DITY) move in 2011. The printout also shows payment for a hotel reservation in New Mexico was authorized on 23 April 2011 and two other payments categorized by merchant type "Travel Agencies & Tour Operators" were authorized on 20 and 24 April 2011. g. A memorandum for record, dated 27 April 2011, signed by his commander states he was aware the applicant was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000182
She states a reasonable person would use the weight ticket filed for her July 2008 move from IN to AZ as a substitute for the weight ticket she was unable to obtain in August 2008. When the applicant presented the local transportation office with the paperwork and receipts for her PPM move, there were no weight tickets for her HHG. After the applicants chain of command intervened on her behalf, the transportation office allowed if she would reload her HHG and weight them out, they would...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006328
The applicant states: * as directed by permanent change of station (PCS) orders, he was required to move from Fort Carson to Fort Leonard Wood * he requested a PPM instead of having the government move his household goods (HHG) * as a requirement for claiming travel expenses, he had his moving truck weighed full near Kansas City, MO * at one point during his family's travels to Fort Leonard Wood, he stopped to assist his wife with the care of their then 3-month old daughter * while assisting...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01038
When he sent in his rebuttal to the excess costs, the only response he received was an increase in his total debt from $1364.09 to $1452.91 for shipment of a desk with his professional gear. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: JPPSO/ECAF recommends that the excess cost charges associated with shipment of the applicant’s household goods be reduced from $1452.91 to $942.26. After a complete review of the evidence of record, we believe that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022030
On 18 October 2012, after the applicant submitted a re-weight memorandum for record, officials at the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 and G-4, reviewed the applicant's request to waive the indebtedness resulting from exceeding his prescribed weight allowance. The documents provided by the applicant regarding his request for an increased HHG weight allowance during his PCS family move from Fort Wainwright, Alaska to Germany were reviewed. As a result, the Board recommends that all...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2005-061
He argued that having to pay more than $6,000 above what he expected to pay for the overage because of misinformation he received from the Transportation Office is a sig- nificant injustice given that he “used an authorized government supported web site to calculate my overage cost as directed by a government expert.” APPLICABLE LAW Article 11.F. § 461, the Secretary may remit or cancel the debt of an enlisted member to the United States “when recovery would be against equity and good...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011724
As he was authorized to ship 18,000 lbs of HHG, he exceeded his authorized weight by 6,700 lbs and incurred a debt of $8,183.18. The PPSO must request a reweigh for shipments exceeding the JFTR weight allowance. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was properly notified on 24 September 2010, when his HHG were picked up from his residence in Virginia, that his HHG had a total net weight of 28,680 lbs.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010792
The travel office indicated the expenditures associated with DITY HHG move were not reimbursable because they were incurred prior to her date of PCS orders. A 23 April 2012 email advised the applicant she was "locked in" for assignment to Fort Sam Houston upon completion of her MOS training. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. showing Headquarters, U.S. Army School of Music Orders 289-01 were published...