IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	        05 AUGUST 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080010235 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that he be paid for a personally procured move (PPM), also known as a do-it-yourself (DITY) move, of his household goods (HHG) shipment from Fort Riley, Kansas to his home of record in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

2.  The applicant essentially states that he initially received separation orders, dated 6 November 2006, which were to release him from active duty on 
19 February 2007, and he started the process of preparing his family for their move back home to Murfreesboro, Tennessee.  However, on 16 January 2007, he was informed that his unit was on orders to deploy to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and his separation orders were revoked on 
8 January 2007.  He further states that “he attempted to do the secretarial process in order to move his family home,” since he would not be assigned to Fort Riley when he returned from deployment, he would be separated from the Army.  But he was told that he did not have separation orders anymore, and that he should do a DITY move upon his return from Operation Enduring Freedom.  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.  Additionally, he states that to deny that entitlement because of a technicality in policy is unjust, and he feels that since he moved his family home as his separation move, he should be reimbursed for that move regardless of when the actual move took place.
3.  The applicant provides orders, dated 8 November 2006, which originally were to release him from active duty on 19 February 2007; his Household Goods Bill of Lading, which shows he paid $4,198.30 for his DITY move; orders, dated 
8 January 2007, which revoked his 8 November 2006 separation orders; orders, dated 16 January 2007, as amended by orders, dated 8 March 2007, which deployed his unit to Afghanistan on or about 8 March 2007; orders, dated 28 May 2008, which will release him from active duty on 15 September 2008; a self-authored memorandum for record, dated 6 June 2008, in which he requests an exception to policy for movement of his household goods and restates the information he provided on his application; and a memorandum for record, dated 30 June 2008, from the Fort Riley, Kansas Personal Property/Passenger Travel Office which shows his request for reimbursement for his DITY move was denied in support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is currently on active duty serving in the rank of captain.

2.  Orders, dated 8 November 2006, were to release the applicant from active duty on 19 February 2007.  However, orders, dated 8 January 2007, revoked these separation orders.

3.  The applicant deployed to Afghanistan on or about 8 March 2007.

4.  The applicant provides a Household Goods Bill of Lading that shows his spouse contracted with North American Van Lines to have their HHG moved from Fort Riley, Kansas to Murfreesboro, Tennessee, with a scheduled pickup date of 12 March 2007 in Kansas, and a delivery date in Tennessee between 
17 through 20 March 2007.  The cost of this move was $4,198.30.  

5.  The applicant returned from Afghanistan, and orders, dated 28 May 2008, will release the applicant from active duty on 15 September 2008.  The analyst for these proceedings contacted the applicant by telephone on 14 July 2008, and the applicant confirmed that he is currently on transition leave.  He also sent a three-page fax which confirms that the total cost of moving their HHG was $4,198.30.

6.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 55-2 (It's Your Move) provides, in pertinent part, guidance on PPMs.  It states that the PPM program is an alternate means of moving personal property.  The program allows a service member to 



personally move HHG and either be reimbursed up to the Government's cost or to collect an incentive payment from the government when they have orders for a permanent change of station, temporary duty, separation, retirement, or assignment to/from or between Government quarters.  Whether a privately owned vehicle/trailer, rental truck/trailer, a hired commercial carrier, Government HHG shipment, or a combination of the above options are used to perform a PPM, the PPM reimbursement is equal to 95 percent of the Government's constructed cost.  The Personal Property Office must provide counseling and prior approval for a PPM move.  Failing to comply with Service requirements of the program may limit payment or result in complete denial of a claim.  

7.  In a previous case involving a PPM, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, G-4, 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 DITY moves on a case-by-case basis for moves occurring after 15 January 1993. Headquarters, Department of the Army delegated the authority to its major commands effective 1 December 1993.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that he should be paid for a PPM, also known as a DITY move, of his HHG shipment from Fort Riley, Kansas to his home of record in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

2.  The Army G-4, in a previous advisory opinion for a case involving a PPM, 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 DITY moves on a case-by-case basis for moves occurring after 15 January 1993.  Headquarters, Department of the Army delegated the authority to its major commands effective 1 December 1993.

3.  It appears that the applicant's HHG were shipped via a PPM between the time his original separation orders were revoked and prior to the date his current separation orders were issued, and without prior authorization and counseling regarding the correct procedures for conducting a PPM.  The applicant, as an officer, should have known that executing financial transactions without being in possession of official, authenticated orders authorizing such movement of HHG should not be undertaken.  However, given the circumstances in this case, it appears that the applicant began preparing to move his family back to his home 



of record in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and that he continued to effect that movement after his original separation orders were revoked.  The fact that he was subsequently authorized shipment of his HHG at government expense from Fort Riley, Kansas to Murfreesboro, Tennessee was also noted.  As a result of him executing a PPM between the time his original separation orders were revoked and prior to the date his current separation orders were issued, he effectively lost the opportunity to utilize his entitlement to shipment of HHG at government expense once orders were issued again on 28 May 2008.  However, the Army would have been paying to move the applicant's HHG and dependents on or after 28 May 2008 as a result of the new separation orders, and there is effectively no harm in changing how or when the Army pays for the applicant's movement of HHG and dependents from Kansas to Tennessee.

4.  In view of the foregoing, and as a matter of equity, the applicant should be entitled to movement of his HHG and dependents from Fort Riley, Kansas to his home of record in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, prior to issuance of orders, as an exception to policy.

5.  The applicant should also be granted an authorization to conduct a PPM 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.

BOARD VOTE:

__XXX __  __XXX__  __XXX__   GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was authorized shipment of HHG (in the form of a PPM 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.

2.  The Board wants to thank the applicant for the sacrifices he made in service to the United States during Operation Enduring Freedom.  The applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his honorable service in arms.




      ___        XXX                ___
                CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080010235



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080010235



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1