IN THE CASE OF 

	BOARD DATE:     29 November 2012

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120008384


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 cancellation of indebtedness that resulted from exceeding his authorized weight allowance for the shipment of his household goods (HHG) from Fort Lewis, WA to Fort Hood, TX.

2.  The applicant states:

* he executed a permanent change of station (PCS) move from Fort Lewis, WA to Fort Hood, TX in 2009
* he submitted a request for exception to policy (ETP) to increase his weight allowance because he exceeded the weight allowance for his rank (sergeant first class (SFC))
* he submitted his ETP request on 11 September 2009 - almost 2 years passed and no one contacted him regarding the status of his request
* he doesn't understand why he was not granted an ETP – he did everything he was asked or advised to do
* he contacted the Fort Hood Transportation Office numerous times to get a status on his ETP request
* in September 2011, 2 years after he submitted his ETP request, he received a debt letter from finance
* in April 2012, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4 (Army G-4) disapproved his ETP request
* he never denied being over his weight allowance and he always complied with requests for documentation in a timely manner
* it should not have taken 3 years to disapprove his ETP request
* the disapproval of his ETP has resulted in a significant financial hardship for his family

3.  The applicant provides:

* Orders 278-06E, issued by Area Support Group – Kuwait, dated 4 October 2008
* DD Form 1299 (Application for Shipment and/or Storage of Personal Property)
* memorandum from the applicant, dated 11 September 2009
* e-mail traffic from Ms. Bxxxxxx Qxxxxxx, dated 8 October 2009, including the following forms:

* bills of lading/government bill of lading (GBL)
* DD Form 1172 (Application for uniformed Services Identification Card – Defense Eligibility Enrollment Reporting System (DEERS) Enrollment)
* 17-page form titled "HHG Descriptive Inventory"
* 13-page form titled "Interstate Worldwide Relocation – Descriptive Inventory"

* Standard Form (SF) 1200 (GBL Correction Notice), dated 4 April 2012
* memorandum from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), dated 6 September 2011, subject: Notice of Indebtedness For: [Applicant], with corresponding memorandum from DFAS, dated 6 September 2011, subject: Request to Prorate, Remit, or Cancel a Debt or a Waiver of Claim
* memorandum from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Fort Knox, KY, dated 29 February 2012, subject: Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness – [Applicant]
* letter of explanation from the applicant, dated 2 April 2012
* e-mail traffic from Ms. Bxxxxxx Qxxxxxx, dated 10 April 2012

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant was honorably retired from the Army on 30 September 2012; however, on the date of his application to the Board, he was serving on active duty, in the rank/grade of SFC/E-7, at Fort Hood, TX.

2.  Following an assignment at Fort Lewis, WA, he was deployed to Camp Arifjan, Kuwait from 6 October 2007 to 3 November 2008.

3.  Orders 278-06E, issued by Area Support Group – Kuwait, dated 4 October 2008, ordered him to proceed on PCS movement, after redeployment to the United States, to the 16th Signal Company, Fort Hood, TX.  These orders show his report date was listed as 10 December 2008.

4.  On 23 April 2009, he completed a DD Form 1299, wherein he requested the packing and shipment of his HHG from his former residence in Olympia, WA, to his new residence in Killeen, TX.  His DD Form 1299 shows his maximum weight allowance (with dependents) was 13,000 pounds. 

5.  On or about 19 June 2009, his HHG were packed and shipped from his residence in Lacey, WA (identified as Olympia, WA on his DD Form 1299), to his residence in Killeen, TX.  His bill of lading shows his shipment equated to a net weight of 24,300 pounds.  No pre-shipping processing documents, including shipping inventory/weight estimation documents and/or documents he would have completed with a representative of the transportation office, were provided for review.  

6.  On 11 September 2009, he requested an after-the-fact ETP to increase his HHG maximum weight allowance to the maximum allowed for his grade (E-7), in order to decrease the amount of excess weight he would eventually be charged for his PCS move.  As rationale for his ETP request, he cited the fact that he previously relocated his dependent mother-in-law's HHG from her home in Arkansas to his former residence in Washington, thus adding to his total weight.  

7.  On 6 September 2011, he received a Notice of Indebtedness from DFAS in the amount of $12,199.63, caused by an overpayment of excess weight charged for shipment.

8.  It appears the applicant requested remission or cancellation of his indebtedness.  

9.  On 29 February 2012, HRC disapproved his request for debt remission or cancellation.  After a review of the details of his request, HRC determined that no grounds existed to remit or cancel the debt based on error or injustice.

10.  On 2 April 2012, he submitted a letter of explanation, wherein he stated that prior to his deployment to Kuwait, he relocated his dependent mother-in-law's HHG from her abandoned house in Arkansas to his family's residence in Lacey, WA. 

11.  On 10 April 2012, an official at U.S. Army Installation Management Command (IMCOM) – Central Region, Fort Sam Houston, TX, requested from the Army G-4 favorable consideration of the applicant's request for an after-the-fact weight allowance increase.  On the same date, an official at the Army G-4 disapproved his request, stating there was sufficient time, while the applicant was deployed to Kuwait, for his family members to do whatever was necessary to ensure his HHG were within the authorized weight allowance prior to shipment to Fort Hood, TX.

12.  On 17 August 2012, in the processing of this application, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Transportation Policy Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, Headquarters, Department of the Army, who stated:

* it is the Soldier's responsibility to remain within his/her weight allowance
* between 2003 and 2007, [Applicant] had time to make disposition of his mother-in-law's HHG in order to stay within his authorized weight allowance
* Army G-4 is unable to increase [Applicant's] weight allowance in order to relieve the debt he incurred by exceeding his authorized weight allowance

13.  On 20 August 2012, the applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinion for review and possible rebuttal; however, he failed to respond.
 
14.  Army Regulation 55-71 (Transportation of Personal Property and Related Services) contains the procedures that govern transportation of personal property.  Paragraph 5-6 contains guidance on excess weight.  It states, in pertinent part, that the owner (military or civilian) is responsible for ensuring that weight allowances are observed (the total weight of HHG shipped plus the weight of HHG in storage does not exceed the authorized weight allowance). 

15.  Army Regulation 600-4 (Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness) provides instructions for submitting and processing applications for remission or cancellation of indebtedness to the United States Army.  Applications must be based on injustice, hardship, or both.  This includes debts caused by errors in pay to or on behalf of a Soldier.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for cancellation or remission of the debt he incurred as a result of a shipment of excess weight was carefully considered.  

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant's HHG shipment exceeded his authorized weight allowance.  By regulation, it was his responsibility to ensure his HHG shipment did not exceed his total authorized weight.  The applicant has failed to show he took any action to ensure his HHG shipment was within his authorized allowance prior to shipment.  No pre-shipping processing documents, including shipping inventory/weight estimation documents and/or documents he would have completed with a representative of the transportation office, were provided for review.  

3.  Given it was the applicant's responsibility to ensure his HHG shipment did not exceed his authorized weight allowance, and absent any evidence showing he proactively participated in the pre-shipping weight estimation process, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.  

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 that 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)                                         AR20110018057



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                 	     AR20120008384 



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS