RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        1 NOVEMBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003032


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

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Anderholm               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas O’Shaughnessy          |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carol Kornhoff                |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, reimbursement of $13,232.16 of out
of pocket expenses he incurred when he shipped his household goods from
Germany to New Mexico as part of a PCS (permanent change of station) move.

2.  The applicant states in his 11 February 2005 application to the Board
that he did not receive adequate counseling from the Installation
Transportation Office (ITO).  He states he was not advised by the ITO that
he would be paying commercial rates for his PCS move.

3.  He states the ITO was required to review the moving company estimate
prior to authorizing payment of government funds for his move.  He states
he believes the ITO was responsible for advising him that he had the
commercial rate Allied International moving company and not the government
rate Allied International moving company.  He states they were two
different companies.

4.  The applicant states that due to time constraints the decision for a
personally procured transportation move was made, but maintains that
decision does not alleviate the ITO from providing information concerning
moving companies and government versus commercial rates.

5.  In response to a 25 April 2005 request from the Board to provide
sufficient documentation to support his February 2005 application, the
applicant, on 4 June 2005, provided several documents associated with the
shipment of his household good (HHG), including copies of electronic mail
which was initiated in an attempt to remedy his situation.

6.  Included in that documentation was a June 2003 request by the applicant
to have the United States Government pay the entire cost of shipping his
household goods as an exception to policy.  He noted in that correspondence
that he was officially notified of his new assignment on 18 April 2003 and
reported to the transportation office to request HHG movement assistance.
He states he was informed by an official of the transportation office that
there was probably not enough time to secure military movers and as such
informed the transportation official that he would conduct a self-procured
move via Allied Movers.  He states the transportation official never
informed him that there were two franchises under the same "Allied" name.
He notes because he was unaware there were two Allied franchises he secured
the wrong company; the one which charged higher rates than the military
allowed.  He states the transportation official never informed him about
the financial limits allowed for self-procured moves and because it was
such a short notice PCS he was unable to attend a briefing from the
transportation office which was scheduled for 26 May 2003.

7.  The applicant noted in that same correspondence that on 7 May 2003,
when he requested a letter of authorization for a self-procured move, the
same transportation official did not recognize the moving company's
letterhead, and showed it to another transportation official who also did
not recognize the letterhead.  However, he notes he was still not told not
to use that company.

8.  The applicant states the Finance Office approved advance payment of
$11,442.00 to support his self-procured HHG move and between 27 and 30 May
2003 his HHG were packed by Allied movers.  When he received the final bill
from Allied and questioned the local transportation officer about the
difference in the bill from Allied (18,649 euros) and the government
allowance ($11,442.00) he was told that he would not receive any additional
funding to off-set the unexpected high cost.  He states he approached
another transportation official who did not recognize the Allied franchise
owner and passed him on to a civilian booking agent for assistance.

9.  On 5 June 2003 the applicant noted he discovered that his HHG were
unfortunately on a Chinese-flag carrier and not a United States flag
carrier and as such his HHG would need to be off loaded and reloaded on a
United States flag carrier, all at his expense.

10.  The applicant states that ultimately he incurred $13,232.16 in
expenses beyond the government’s $11,442.60 authorized amount and argues
that it is the responsibility of the transportation office to ensure that
the Soldier is advised through the process, particularly in the event of a
last minute move.  He notes that under the reasonable man concept he
questions the logic of an individual intentionally coordinating to spend in
excess of $13,000.00 out of his own pocket to comply with an accelerated
PCS.

11.  The applicant provides page 2 of his HHG briefing document; his
clearing papers; a document titled "Processing Allied Moves" he states came
from the local finance office; deposit information for the government
transportation funds; a 9 May 2003 letter of authorization for personally
procured shipment of HHG via a commercial carrier; two undated statements
from Allied International with billing estimates; a weight certificate; the
6 June 2003 letter requesting payment of excess funds as an exception to
policy; several electronic messages (e-mails) regarding his situation,
including one indicating the applicant was not entitled to reimbursement of
any funds beyond the government’s authorized amount; a copy of the business
card of the transportation official he initially dealt with in Germany who
failed to adequately brief him; a June 2003 final invoice; copies of
documents transferring funds to pay for the excess shipping costs; and a 14
July 2003 request for assistance from the Holloman Air Force Base Inspector
General.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant initially entered
active duty as an enlisted Soldier in 1978, was subsequently appointed as a
warrant officer, and served continuously until his retirement for length of
service in June 2005.

2.  The applicant's records indicate he was an Army aviator and promoted to
pay grade W-4 in April 1997, at about the same time he was initially
assigned to duties as an aviator in Europe.  He was initially assigned to a
training command and reassigned in 2000 to an aviation regiment.  In
November 2002 he attended a 2-week Warrant Officer Senior Staff Course at
Fort Rucker, Alabama and returned to his unit in Germany following
training.  On 1 April 2003 he was promoted to pay grade W-5.

3.  In the initial processing of this application, the Board, on 25 April
2005, requested the applicant provide a copy of his reassignment orders, in
addition to other documentation used to make his 2003 PCS back to the
United States.  Although he did provide copies of several documents
associated with the shipment of his household goods, he did not provide a
copy of the PCS orders.

4.  On 9 May 2003 the applicant signed a document (Department of Defense
Form 1797 Personal Property Counseling Checklist) noting that he had been
briefed on the self-procurement of HHG shipment pursuant to U5320 D-2 of
the Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) and indicated he intended to
self-procure movement of his household goods.  The applicant provided only
the back of the form with his application.  The form does not reflect the
signature of any counseling official.

5.  That same day, 9 May 2003, a letter of authorization for personally
procured shipment of HHG via a commercial carrier, was issued and signed
for by the applicant.  That letter specifically notes that transportation
of HHG had to be on a United States flag carrier, that such shipments were
not subject to United States Government quality control inspections to
determine the suitability or qualification of the carrier to provide the
shipment and that there was no disciplinary program to restrict any carrier
from participation in the personally procured shipment program.  He also
acknowledged that he understood that reimbursement to the customer was
limited to the weight of shipment and that any additional services or
charges submitted by the carrier were the responsibility of the customer.
The applicant's HHG shipment weight was estimated to be 13,500 pounds which
equated to an authorized government payment of $11,442.60 ($84.76 per 100
pounds of estimated weight).  The applicant was authorized advancement of
the government's payment.

6.  Included with the applicant's petition to the Board were two weight and
cost quotes from Allied International.  Both documents are undated,
although both contain the statement "should our conditions meet with your
full approval, please be so kind as to complete and sign the ORDER-FOR-
SERVICE and return to us."  Both documents list only three charges, origin
service (described as loading of the packed goods at residence, including
full overseas packing and wrapping), ocean freight (described as transport
service or transport of goods from Stuttgart to Alamogordo by ocean
freight), and destination service (described as transport to new home,
complete delivery of the household goods to the new residence and removal
of packing material at the time of delivery).

7.  The first estimate from the moving company, based on 17,500 pounds in a
40 foot container, showed a price of 18,649 euros (a little more than
$22,000.00 in US currency based on an exchange rate of 1.21 dollars per
euro – the exchange rated noted on the applicant 10 June 2003 bank fund
transfer document).  The second estimate, which the applicant signed on 14
May 2003, was based on 13,500 pounds (the same weight estimated indicated
on the applicant's 9 May personally procured shipping authorization
letter).  However, the cost estimate remained the same as the initial
estimate; 18,649 euros.

8.  According to a 14 May 2003 document contained in the applicant's
petition to this Board, his HHG pick-up date was 27 May 2003.

9.  The installation clearance record indicates he completed his out
processing on 6 June 2003.  His request for an exception to policy to be
reimbursed the entire cost of shipping his HHG was also dated 6 June 2003.

10.  An invoice included with the applicant's petition to this Board, which
is dated "June 2003" reflects a total charge of 21,744.04 euros; 3095.04
euros above the original estimate of 18,649 euros.  That invoice reflects
more detailed charges than did the original undated estimate documents,
including charges for trucking to port of departure (2130 euros), customs
clearance charges, and repackaging of container to United States vessel
(1355 euros).  The applicant ultimately, according to his statement and
copies of bank fund transfer documents, paid the transportation company,
which processed his HHG shipment, a total of 20,744.04 euros (approximately
$25,000.00 using the same June 2003 conversion rate).

11.  According to an 18 June 2003 e-mail, included with the applicant's
petition to this Board, a member of the Army G-4 staff sent a message to be
passed on to transportation officers, which asked that more specific
details be included in letters authorizing Soldiers to personally procure
shipment of their HHG to and from overseas under the provision of JFTR
U5320-D2.  The staff official noted that in some instances Soldiers had
made arrangements with well known United States flag carriers only to
discover that the United States flag carrier booked the ocean leg of the
shipment with a foreign flag carrier thus causing the shipment to be
stopped at the port and turned over to a United States flag carrier,
causing an additional expense for the Soldier and delayed arrival of their
HHG.  The applicant's letter of authorization contained essentially the
same statements the G-4 official was asking to be included in future
authorization letters.  Her statements, however, did specifically state
that the Soldier would advise the carrier of the requirement that the use
of a United States flag carrier was mandatory.

12.  Ultimately the applicant's petition to be granted an exception and
reimbursed the entire cost of shipping his HHG was denied.  The applicant
was informed that there was no recourse to recover costs exceeding the
Government Constructed costs and noted the applicant had signed a letter of
authorization acknowledging as much.

13.  On 14 July 2003 the applicant initiated a request for assistance from
the Inspector General at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico.  The result
of that request for assistance was not provided by the applicant as part of
his February 2005 application to this Board.

14.  U5320 D-2 of the JFTR notes a member who personally arranges for
transportation or non-temporary storage (NTS) of HHGs is entitled to
reimbursement of the actual cost not to exceed the Government's constructed
transportation and/or NTS cost, or payment of a monetary allowance equal to
95% of the Government's constructed cost when a shipping or transportation
officer is available or if the member chooses to arrange for the HHG
transportation or NTS at personal expense.

15.  U5320 D-1 does provide for reimbursement of actual cost when a member
personally arranges for transportation of HHG when government procured HHG
transportation is not available.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's shipment of HHG was personally procured by him under
the provisions of U5320 D-2 of the JFTR (Government procured transportation
available) and not under U5320 D-1 (not available) and as such was only
entitled to reimbursement of costs not to exceed what it would have cost
the government to procure shipment.  He acknowledged as much in the letter
of authorization which he signed on 9 May 2003.

2.  The applicant also argues that he was not adequately counseled and as
such should not be held accountable for the excess funds he incurred by
utilizing what appears to be a less than reputable shipping company.
However, he acknowledged in the 9 May 2003 letter of authorization that he
also understood that personally procured moves were not subject to United
States Government quality control inspection to determine the suitability
or qualification of the carrier to provide shipment.  He has provided no
evidence from any of the transportation officials involved in his initial
transportation counseling which supports his argument that he was told he
had to personally procure shipment of his HHG or advised to continue with
the company he had selected in spite of the fact that that company's
estimated shipping cost far exceeded what the Government would pay.

3.  The applicant chose to assume responsibility for shipping his own HHGs.
 He was aware of the amount of money which the government would reimburse
him for shipping those HHGs.  He knew prior to signing a contract with his
selected carrier that their estimated cost exceeded the amount the
Government was going to reimburse and yet signed a contract to utilize
their service, even when their cost estimate remained the same despite a
reduction in the HHG weight estimate.

4.  While the applicant argues that a reasonable man would not
intentionally coordinate to spend money out of his own pocket to comply
with his accelerated PCS, the evidence provided by the applicant, indicates
he elected to sign a contract with a company who was already charging him
more than what the government was going to reimburse him, and in fact
signed a contract with that same company in spite of the fact that they
failed to reduce their estimated cost, even though they reduced his HHG
weight estimate.  Under such circumstances it would be more logical to
argue that a reasonable man would not have signed such a contract.



5.  The applicant also implies that he was forced to utilize the company he
selected to ship his HHGs because of his accelerated PCS move.  However,
the applicant has provided no evidence that his choice for shipping HHGs
was limited to this single company or that he was forced by circumstances
to proceed with a company he knew would cost more than the government would
reimburse.

6.  The applicant, and the e-mail traffic he submits, implies that his
excess costs resulted from the shipping company utilizing a foreign flag
carrier to transport his HHG and then having to transfer the goods to a
United States flag carrier.  However, the billing statement shows that the
cost of transferring to the United States flag carrier only added an
additional 1355 euros to the overall cost of the shipment.  The applicant
had already committed, by signing the initial contract, to shipping costs
which were nearly double what the government had allowed for reimbursement.

7.  It is unfortunate that the applicant incurred out of pocket expenses to
ship his HHGs.  However, he signed a statement acknowledging the limits of
government reimbursement if he elected to personally procure shipment of
his HHGs, and that personally procured moves were not subject to United
States Government quality controls.  In spite of acknowledging these
limitations he continued to utilize a company which he and transportation
officials questioned from the onset.

8.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JA____  __TO ___  __CK ___  DENY APPLICATION






BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.





                                  ____ James Anderholm______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003032                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051101                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |128.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]