| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Robert J. McGowan | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III | Member | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member |
2. The applicant requests that she be relieved of a debt of $308.38 incurred for the purchase of full replacement protection for her household goods (HHG).
3. The applicant states, in effect, that she retired from active duty. When she shipped her HHG to her retirement address, she purchased full replacement protection for her possessions. Although she made a claim and was paid for damage to her HHG shipment, she received a depreciated payment and did not receive full replacement value.
4. The applicant’s military records show that she is a retired Sergeant First Class (SFC/E-7). She was released from active duty at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, on 31 October 1995. On 18 June 1999, her HHGs were picked up by the mover and delivered to her retirement location in Buffalo, New York, 18 November 1999. Incident to this move, the applicant purchased full replacement protection for her HHG at a cost of $420.75. Since the Government rate for this service was only $112.37, her cost was $308.38.
5. When the applicant’s HHGs arrived in Buffalo, there was $749.70 worth of damages. She promptly filed a claim with the mover, but they referred her to the nearest military claims office at Fort Drum, New York. Unaware that she had filed a claim with the mover, the Fort Drum Claims Office sent the applicant a depreciated payment of $414.00. Because the difference between the actual loss and the depreciated payment was approximately the same as her full replacement protection cost, she accepted the payment.
6. On 29 June 2001, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Indianapolis Center (DFAS-IN) notified the applicant that she was indebted in the amount of $308.38 -- her portion of the cost of full replacement protection. When she contacted the mover to recover the difference ($335.70) between her claim of $749.70 and her payment of $414.00, the mover advised that they were no longer responsible for any additional compensation.
7. On 6 September 2001, DFAS-IN notified the applicant that her only recourse was to apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.
8. On 19 November 2001, the Defense Legal Services Agency, after reviewing the applicant’s case, notified her that because “full replacement protection was ordered and paid for, but full replacement value was not paid,” she could attempt to get the Army to offset the $335.70 against a future payment to the mover, or she could petition this Board for relief from the $308.38 debt.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. When she contracted to ship her HHGs to her place of retirement, the applicant requested full replacement protection for her possessions. The cost of this insurance was $420.75. Since the Government would only pay $112.37, the applicant became responsible for $308.38.
2. Through a series of errors, the Fort Drum Claims Office paid the applicant a depreciated value for the damage to her HHG. When the applicant accepted this payment, the mover was released from any further liability.
3. DFAS-IN charged the applicant a debt of $308.38 for her portion of the full replacement protection on her HHG. However, the applicant did not receive full replacement value for her loss. To continue to impose this debt against the applicant is inequitable and unjust.
4. 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 did not apply for full replacement protection for her HHG shipment of 18 June 1999, that she is relieved of the debt for same in the amount of $308.38, and that she be reimbursed for any and all moneys collected against this debt.
BOARD VOTE:
__jl____ __tbr___ __rwa___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
Joann Langston
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001066184 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020709 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 128.1400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00833
Although the applicant requested FRV insurance on her HHG shipment and took all the necessary steps to get it, JACC recommends no additional payment be made on her claim. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087388C070212
The records pertaining to this case were provided by the applicant with his application. On 27 September 2001, a memorandum was dispatched to the applicant notifying him that he was being recommended for charges of financial liability to the United States Government in the amount of $2,573.00, for the loss of the computer. The Board also finds, in the absence of evidence as to the computer's condition, that the reasonable approach to determining the costs to the applicant should be to take...
She indicated on her DD Form 1299, Application for Shipment and/or Storage of Personal Property, that her shipment would contain professional items. In support of her request applicant provided a memorandum from the Quality Assurance office; her excess cost rebuttal adjudication letter; DD Forms 139, Pay Adjustment Authorization; DD Form 1299; AF Form 767, Extended Active Duty Order; and, Notification of Indebtedness letter. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013748
c. A member who personally arranges for transportation is authorized the actual cost reimbursement not to exceed the Government's constructed best value transportation cost for the actual HHG weight transported, not to exceed the member's maximum HHG weight and payment of a monetary allowance equal to 95% of the Government constructed best value transportation cost for the actual HHG weight transported not to exceed the member's maximum HHG weight. The applicant requested an advance from...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00834
As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). In this respect, we are in agreement with the opinion and recommendation of the appropriate Air Force office, AFLSA/JACC, that the evidence supports awarding the recommended amount of $807.49 by the Traffic Management Office rather than the applicant’s requested amount of $1,138.84. FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-00834 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011059
It also shows he was instructed to contact the Transportation Office at his destination and request a reweigh of his HHG shipment prior to delivery and/or for additional assistance; and (2) on 20 July 2012, the Shipment Manager notified the applicant that his HHG shipment was scheduled for delivery on 20 July 2012. On 18 July 2012, a message was sent to the applicant's AKO email account informing him there was a possibility of having exceeded his HHG weight limit. It is concluded that he...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03436
He received a letter dated 29 Sep 06 stating the claim was denied because he was late submitting the DD Form 1840; consequently, the carrier did not receive the DD Form 1840 in the required amount of time. The claim files show the carrier provided the DD Form 1840 to the applicant at delivery and notified the applicant of the requirement to file timely notice. The claims examiner tried to determine why the applicant did not provide timely notice considering it is his third claim for HHGs...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02292
The applicant states he was reimbursed fully for his move from Seymour Johnson to his home of record, but not for his move from his home of record to the Academy. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AF/DPDFP recommends the applicant be reimbursed a total of $82.15 for the shipment of items from his home of record to the Academy. However, the Board agrees with the recommendation by HQ AF/DPDFP to reimburse the applicant in the amount of...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1996-02029
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Director, Joint Personal Property Shipping Office, JPPSO-SAT/DIR, reviewed this application and recommended denial. ECAF again reviewed the case and based on claim documentation, they granted a weight credit of 493 pounds for missing and irreparably damaged items under GBL VP-154,889 and 108 pounds for items...