IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  26 July 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100030251 


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 her records be corrected to show she was entitled to shipment of household goods (HHG) from Temple Hills, Maryland, to Leavenworth, Kansas.

2.  The applicant provides a chronology of the events which led to her current predicament.

	a.  She had two approved extensions of her retirement travel and shipping entitlement, dated 28 August 2008 and 14 October 2009.  She was then accepted for a position in Leavenworth, Kansas, and asked for her HHG to be moved to a storage facility in Kansas.  She then had delays in the completion of her house in Kansas and asked for and was granted extensions of her 90-day storage entitlement.

	b.  She was later notified her orders for shipment of HHG were erroneous and she was responsible for the entire cost of the move, which was $13,216.94 plus $20.64 a day in storage fees.

	c.  The Department of the Army G-1 determined she consummated her retirement travel and shipping entitlement when she moved her HHG from overseas to the United States.  She moved to Maryland due to a misconception that she would receive basic allowance for housing at the National Capital Region rate.

	d.  It was not her intent to defraud the government; she believed she was entitled to movement of her HHG to Kansas.

3.  The applicant provides a memorandum, dated 17 November 2010; Shipment Services and Charges Bill of Lading Number ZX-996XXX; Invoice Number 311XXX and 311XXXX; an information paper titled, "Information for all Retirees Requesting Extension of Their Transportation Shipping Entitlement"; emails; a letter, dated 27 September 2010; a letter, dated 5 October 2009; a memorandum, dated August 2008; a letter, dated 15 August 2008; documents pertaining to her final assignment in Germany and her retirement; and documents pertaining to the movement of her HHG to Temple Hills, Maryland.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 11 June 2004, Orders 163-02A were issued reassigning her from her unit to a transition center in Germany.  Paragraph (i) states, "You are authorized travel, shipment of HHG, unaccompanied baggage, and privately-owned vehicle to your home of selection.  You have 1 year to complete your home of selection move in conjunction with your retirement."  Paragraph (j) states, "You must apply for shipment of your HHG within 1 year of your retirement date or your shipping entitlement will be lost."

2.  On 31 December 2004, she was retired in pay grade E-7 for years of service. 
Her retirement orders show her place of retirement as Darmstadt, Germany.  Those orders also state, "You are authorized up to 1 year to complete your home of selection move in conjunction with your retirement."

3.  On 15 August 2008 (over 3 1/2 years after her retirement), the applicant submitted a letter to the transportation office.  In this letter she stated she was told in her retirement briefing that she had up to 5 years after retirement to decide where her final destination would be and be authorized shipment of her HHG.  Never was she told she had to request yearly extensions.  She concluded by saying she was moving back to her home of record in Kansas and had to face the possibility of paying for the movement of her HHG herself.

4.  In August 2008, the Joint Personal Property Shipping Office (JPPSO) approved the applicant's request for extension of her travel and shipping entitlement.

5.  On 5 October 2009, the applicant requested an additional 1-year extension of her travel and shipping entitlement.

6.  In October 2009, that request was approved.

7.  On 27 September 2010, the applicant was notified that her temporary storage of HHG entitlement expired on 26 September 2010.

8.  On 17 November 2010, the applicant was notified she was indebted to the government in the amount of $13,216.94.  This indebtedness was due to the erroneous shipment of her HHG from Temple Hills, Maryland, to Leavenworth, Kansas, on 2 June 2010.

9.  The email correspondence provided by the applicant shows that when she had her HHG shipped from Germany to Maryland on 21 October 2004 and took receipt of her HHG, she consummated her retirement travel and shipping entitlement.  It adds that there is no authority to allow two HHG moves under the same allowance.

10.  On 14 June 2011, the applicant submitted a supplemental letter to the Board.  In this letter she states she relied on "detrimental reliance" on moving her HHG, as established by promissory estoppels.  She explains that promissory estoppels may apply when the following elements are proven:

* a promise was made
* relying on the promise was reasonable or foreseeable
* there was actual and reasonable reliance on the promise
* the reliance was detrimental
* injustice can only be prevented by enforcing the promise

11.  The applicant adds that she wrote letters requesting the retirement travel and shipping entitlement extensions and only started the process of moving her HHG after those extensions were granted.

12.  The applicant submits additional enclosures which she lists in her letter.

13.  The Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) contains the basic statutory regulations concerning the uniformed service member's travel and transportation. 
Paragraph U5365-F states HHG must be turned over for transportation within 1 year following termination of active duty.  An extension of the 1-year time limit may be authorized/approved through the Secretarial Process when an unexpected event beyond the member's control occurs which prevents the member from moving to the home of selection within the specified time limit.  A time limit extension also may be authorized/approved through the Secretarial Process if in the best interest of the Service or substantially to the member's benefit and not more costly or adverse to the service.  Extensions may be authorized/approved only for the specific period of time the Soldier anticipates is needed to complete the move.  If, at the expiration of this extension period, additional time is required, the member may request a further extension through the Secretarial Process citing the reasons for the extension.  An additional authorized period for a specific period of time may then be authorized/approved through the Secretarial Process.

14.  Paragraph U5012-I of the JFTR states that a written time limit extension that includes an explanation of the circumstances justifying the extension may not be authorized/approved if it extends travel and transportation allowances for more than 6 years from the date of separation or release from active duty or retirement unless a certified on-going medical condition prevents relocation of the member for longer than 6 years from the separation/retirement date.  This paragraph also precludes the approval of extensions merely to accommodate personal preferences or convenience.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Essentially, the applicant is requesting to be afforded an additional retirement travel and shipping entitlement.

2.  Her primary contention is that the Army established a moral responsibility to pay for her second move when it granted her two extensions of the 1-year limit to use her retirement travel and shipping entitlement.

3.  In this regard, it is well known by career military members that the Army will move your HHG to a home of selection upon your retirement.  It would not be reasonable to believe the Army will move a retiree's HHG multiple times after retirement.

4.  The applicant did not move to the United States on a permanent change of station (PCS).  As such, she would have known her movement of HHG from Germany to Maryland was not a PCS entitlement.  Therefore, by default, it had to be her retirement travel and shipping entitlement.  It couldn't have been anything else.

5.  As for an implied moral obligation, the applicant requested an extension of her retirement travel and shipping entitlement, an entitlement she had already used.  It is accepted that JPPSO erred when it took the applicant at her word, that she had an existing retirement travel and shipping entitlement, when it granted her two extension approvals.  But the JPPSO's approvals were for an extension of her existing retirement travel and shipping entitlement, not a reinstatement of that entitlement.  As such, the JPPSO's two extension approvals do not establish any moral responsibility to grant her request.

6.  To grant the applicant's request would be giving her a benefit not afforded to other retirees – two shipments of her HHG after retirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X___  ____X___  ____X___  DENY APPLICATION 

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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



      ____________X_____________
                 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)                                         AR20100030251



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100030251



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1