| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’ Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III | Member | ||
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that authorization for the return shipment of a privately owned vehicle (POV) be granted.
3. The applicant states, in effect, upon mobilization entitlement was granted to ship a POV from home of record to Camp South, Hawaii, in the mobilization orders issued. A subsequent determination was made that this shipment was not authorized and return shipment of the POV is now being denied. The mistaken authorization to ship the vehicle was through no fault of the individual, and denying the return shipment is unjust and results in an undue hardship on the applicant.
4. The applicant’s military records show that Orders Number M-10-100498, dated 18 October 2001, issued by the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM), authorized the applicant’s mobilization in support of Operation Enduring Freedom for a period not to exceed 365 days.
5. The additional instructions contained in the applicant’s mobilization orders authorized travel by POV as more advantageous to the government, and as a result the POV was shipped to Hawaii at government expense.
6. Subsequent to the arrival of the POV in Hawaii, it was determined that the authorization to ship it was not in compliance with Title 10 of the United States Code, section 2634 (10 USC 2634). As a result return shipment was denied.
7. The Chief of Staff, United States Army Pacific (US PACOM), a major general, has provided a memorandum in support this application. It indicates that the US PACOM strongly recommends approval of the application to this Board in order to rectify the injustice and financial hardships placed upon the soldier. It further indicates that the mobilization orders authorized the shipment of the POV, but the Army is now denying the soldier the option to return the POV to the Continental United States (CONUS). It further states that the soldier was ordered to active duty by the President of the United States to support the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), and volunteered to support our country during this crisis. The soldier served selflessly and professionally for the command and the Department of the Army (DA), and the right solution for this issue is to approve the return shipment of the POV.
8. Title 10 of the United States Code, section 2634 provides the legal authority for the transportation or storage of motor vehicles for members on a change of permanent station or extended deployment. Sub-paragraph (c) states, in pertinent part, that when there has been a shipping error, or when orders directing a change of permanent station have been canceled, revoked, or modified after receipt by the member, a motor vehicle transported pursuant to this section may also be reshipped or transshipped in accordance with this section.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that the failure to authorize the return shipment of the POV would be unjust because the error was through no fault of the applicant and would result in an undue hardship. Thus, it finds this claim has merit.
2. The specific facts and circumstances surrounding the denial of the return shipment of the POV in question were not made available to the Board. However, the evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant is free of any culpability in the error that allowed the original shipment of the POV. Therefore, the Board concludes that it would serve the interest of equity and justice to grant the requested relief.
3. 10 USC 2634 provides the legal authority to ship or store a motor vehicle upon a permanent change of station or extended mobilization. Sub-paragraph
(c) states, in pertinent part, that when there has been a shipping error, a motor vehicle transported may also be reshipped or transshipped. It is clear that the original shipment of the POV in question was not authorized because the applicant’s move was not a permanent change of station or an extended deployment as defined in the law.
4. However, although in error, it is clear the POV was originally shipped under 10 USC 2634. Therefore, the Board finds it would be appropriate to use the provisions of sub-paragraph (c) as the legal basis to authorize the return shipment of the POV based on the original shipping error, and the obvious injustice that will result if relief is not provided.
5. 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 authorizing the return shipment of the POV of the individual concerned from Hawaii; by return shipping the POV in question at government expense upon the departure of the individual from Hawaii; or by reimbursing the individual concerned if the POV in question has already been return shipped at the individual’s own expense.
BOARD VOTE:
__RVO__ __TBR__ __DPH__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
___Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.__
CHAIRPERSON
sa
| CASE ID | AR2002081132 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/11/07 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | N/A |
| DISCHARGE REASON | N/A |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 283 | 128.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081130C070215
The applicant’s military records show that Orders Number M-10-100784, dated 24 October 2001, issued by the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM), authorized the applicant’s mobilization in support of Operation Enduring Freedom for a period not to exceed 365 days. It further indicates that the mobilization orders authorized the shipment of the POV, but the Army is now denying the soldier the option to return the POV to the Continental United States (CONUS). Therefore, the Board finds...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081135C070215
The applicant’s military records show that Orders Number M-10-100778, dated 24 October 2001, issued by the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM), authorized the applicant’s mobilization in support of Operation Enduring Freedom for a period not to exceed 365 days. It further indicates that the mobilization orders authorized the shipment of the POV, but the Army is now denying the soldier the option to return the POV to the Continental United States (CONUS). Therefore, the Board finds...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081131C070215
The applicant’s military records show that Orders Number M-10-100781, dated 24 October 2001, issued by the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM), authorized the applicant’s mobilization in support of Operation Enduring Freedom for a period not to exceed 365 days. It further indicates that the mobilization orders authorized the shipment of the POV, but the Army is now denying the soldier the option to return the POV to the Continental United States (CONUS). Therefore, the Board finds...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081134C070215
The applicant’s military records show that Orders Number M-10-100777, dated 24 October 2001, issued by the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM), as amended authorized the applicant’s mobilization in support of Operation Enduring Freedom for a period not to exceed 695 days. It further indicates that the mobilization orders authorized the shipment of the POV, but the Army is now denying the soldier the option to return the POV to the Continental United States (CONUS). Therefore, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081136C070215
The applicant’s military records show that Orders Number M-10-100785, dated 24 October 2001, issued by the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM), authorized the applicant’s mobilization in support of Operation Enduring Freedom for a period not to exceed 365 days. It further indicates that the mobilization orders authorized the shipment of the POV, but the Army is now denying the soldier the option to return the POV to the Continental United States (CONUS). Therefore, the Board finds...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081137C070215
The applicant’s military records show that Orders Number M-10-100779, dated 24 October 2001, issued by the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM), authorized the applicant’s mobilization in support of Operation Enduring Freedom for a period not to exceed 365 days. It further indicates that the mobilization orders authorized the shipment of the POV, but the Army is now denying the soldier the option to return the POV to the Continental United States (CONUS). Therefore, the Board finds...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012389
The applicant states, in effect, that upon receipt of assignment orders authorizing concurrent travel, he chose to ship his Honda Odyssey using his Government entitlement and elected to pay for shipment of his second POV, a Volkswagen Passat, at his own expense. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was authorized shipment of one POV to his new duty station in Hawaii, as reflected in Headquarters, Fort McPherson Orders 184-003, dated 3 June 2006. Given that the applicant was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 04100113C070208
The applicant states he requested, and was authorized by his assignment branch, to ship a second car to Hawaii “due to an exceptional family member.” He states his reassignment orders were amended to allow shipment of the second car. To correct this injustice, the applicant’s reassignment order to Hawaii should be corrected to include the statement “If the service member’s second vehicle is accepted by officials for transportation to Hawaii based on this order, and the service member is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015781
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to show he was authorized to ship a privately owned vehicle (POV) at government expense in conjunction with his discharge. c. Unless the applicant provides documentation to show he was advised by the transportation office to personally procure the transportation of his POV, reimbursement cannot be authorized. When he received this opinion, he called the Schofield Barracks transportation office and spoke to one of their...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01077
Since the applicant’s POV did not meet the standards for operations in New Zealand without major modifications, he was entitled to ship the vehicle from his assignment at the time to the CONUS for storage. His private owned vehicle (POV) was erroneously shipped from Japan to New Zealand under the authority of Special Order AA- 1299, dated 7 Aug 03, and is authorized to be reshipped from New Zealand to the appropriate vehicle processing center for storage under the provisions of the Joint...