IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  16 January 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130006523 


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, remission of the debt he incurred as a result of exceeding the authorized weight for his household goods (HHG).

2.  The applicant states that when his HHG were picked up the driver stated he had another pick-up to make later that day.  The driver stated he would "close out" the applicant's HHG shipment after he had completed the other pick-up.  After his HHG items were loaded onto the moving truck and he had signed the necessary paperwork he noticed that his HHG took up approximately 75 percent of the moving truck's available space.  He believes the moving company made the other pick-up and neglected to remove those items before weighing his HHG.  The moving company documented his HHG weight as 14,920 pounds.  It is impossible that his HHG exceeded his authorized weight limit of 9,000 pounds.  This error has resulted in his owing the Army a debt of $5,277.72.  He is currently working as a Human Resources Sergeant and his wife is the Treasurer for his unit's family readiness group.  This debt has placed a significant financial hardship upon his family.

3.  The applicant provides:

* Vehicle registration renewal notice, dated March 2011
* Personally Procured Move (PPM) Checklist and Certificate of Expenses, dated 8 February 2012
* Orders R-02-281669, issued by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Fort Knox, KY, dated 17 February 2012
* 
Email, subject:  Travel Voucher Settlement, dated 3 April 2012
* DD Form 2278 (Application for Do It Yourself (DITY) Move and Counseling Checklist), dated 22 May 2012
* 7-page pick-up inventory, dated 25 May 2012
* State certificate of weights and measures, dated 29 May 2012
* 7-page delivery inventory, dated 29 May 2012
* 2-page HHG descriptive inventory, dated 29 May 2012
* DD Form 139 (Pay Adjustment Authorization), dated 21 September 2012
* DD Form 139, dated 18 October 2012
* DD Form 1351-2 (Travel Voucher or Subvoucher), dated 8 February 2013
* Email traffic, dated 8 February 2013

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having had previous enlisted service, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 17 April 2007.  He is currently serving in military occupational specialty 42A (Human Resources Specialist) in the rank/grade of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6.

2.  He provided Orders R-02-281669, dated 17 February 2012.  At the time these orders were issued he was assigned in San Antonio, TX.  He was ordered to active duty in an Active Guard Reserve status and assigned to the
137th Quartermaster Company, Field Service, Direct Support, El Monte, CA with a report date of 16 April 2012.

* His rank was listed as sergeant (SGT)/E-5
* He was authorized shipment of HHG at the with dependent rate

3.  He provided an email from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) entitled "Travel Voucher Settlement," dated 3 April 2012, that stated his voucher for travel Orders Number R02281 starting on 11 April 2012 and ending on 16 April 2012 had been paid by electronic funds transfer on voucher number 851953, dated 3 April 2013.  The amount paid to the travel voucher was $3,882.16.  Unless his financial institution rejected the electronic funds transfer, the funds would post to his account within 24 to 48 hours.

4.  He provided a DD Form 2278, dated 22 May 2012, that shows in:

	a.  item 7 (entitlements) he selected/indicated:

* Option of government bill of lading (GBL) (Van) and/or DITY move (nontemporary storage)
* 
DITY move authorized from San Antonio, TX to El Monte, CA
* Installation transportation office (ITO)/transportation movement office (TMO) provided with accurate estimate weight of HHG:  600 pounds
* 90 days of temporary storage

	b.  item 8 (Member Responsibility) he selected/indicated:

* Pick up date of rental vehicle on 29 May 2012
* Empty/loaded weight tickets required for each trip made - use government, public, commercial scales
* Name, rank, social security number, Weightmaster's signature required on each weight ticket
* Trailers weighed attached to prime mover (no-passengers aboard-weight entire unit at same time)

	c.  item 9 (Cost Computation) he estimated his constructive costs:

* Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) rate solicitations plus $5.00 per 100 pounds (CWT) X estimated weight or weight allowance: $795.35
* Estimated gross incentive:  $755.58

5.  He provided a 7-page pick-up inventory, dated 25 May 2012.  The applicant and the carrier signed this document indicating they had checked all the items listed on the pick-up inventory and numbered them 1 to 182, inclusive, and acknowledged this was a true and complete list of goods tendered and of the state of the goods received.

6.  He provided a 7-page delivery inventory, dated 29 May 2012.  The applicant and the carrier signed this document indicating they had checked all the items listed on the delivery inventory and verified their condition.  This form shows the applicant received 290 items on the delivery inventory.

7.  He provided a state certificate of weights and measures, dated 31 May 2012, that contains the applicant's signature, name, rank, social security number, and the Certified Public Weigher's signature.  The Certified Public Weigher certified that he had weighed the applicant's HHG and that the weight and conditions set forth were true and correct.  The gross weight of the HHG was listed as 4,640 pounds.

8.  He provided a DD Form 139, dated 21 September 2012, that shows:

* The net weight of his HHG was 14,920 pounds
* The adjusted HHG weight minus 10 percent for packing materials was 13,428 pounds
* he was authorized a total of 9,000 pounds for his HHG
* he exceeded his authorized weight limit for HHG by 4,428 pounds
* he incurred a debt to the government of $3,863.80 for exceeding his authorized HHG weight

9.  He provided a DD Form 139, dated 18 October 2012, that shows:

* The net weight of his HHG was 14,920 pounds
* The adjusted HHG weight minus 10% percent for packing materials was 13,428 pounds
* he was authorized a total of 9,000 pounds for his HHG
* he exceeded his authorized weight limit for HHG by 4,428 pounds
* he incurred a debt to the government of $1,620.40 for exceeding his authorized HHG weight

10.  An email from DFAS, dated 4 November 2013, that shows:

* The original debt of $3,863.80 was revised to $3,675.32
* The original debt was then revised a second time to $3,521.51 because he received credit for professional items/weight and received a reweigh
* His supplemental debt of $1,602.40 was revised to $1,524.23
* His supplemental debt was then revised a second time to $1,460.45 because he received credit for professional items/weight and received a reweigh
* The original shipping weight was 14,920 pounds, reweigh was 14,640 pounds (a difference of 280 pounds) the professional items weighed 240 pounds

11.  During the processing of this case, on 6 November 2012, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Transportation Policy Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4 (Logistics), Washington, DC.  The advisory official stated:

	a.  The applicant's HHG were weighed twice.  The first weight occurred after the HHG were picked up.  The HHG were reweighed prior to delivery because the first weight, 14,920 pounds, exceeded his authorized weight allowance of 

9,000 pounds.  The second weight was 14,640 pounds.  Both weights were supported with certified weight tickets.

	b.  Officials at the G-4 contacted DFAS to request a revision of the applicant's excess weight debt based on the lower weight of 14,640 pounds.  The debt was revised from $5,199.35 to $4,981.96.

12.  The Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR), Volume One (Uniformed Service Members), paragraph U5310 (Basic allowances) states the authorized weight allowance is 9,000 pounds for Soldiers in the pay grade of E-5, with dependents, who perform a permanent duty station move in accordance with orders issued with effective dates on or after 1 October 2007.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant argues that he did not ship as much weight as indicated in the weight tickets.  He contends his HHG may have been weighed along with another person's property.  He bases this contention on the mover/carrier's statement that he had another pick-up to make before he could close out the applicant's HHG shipment.

2.  On 25 May 2012, when the applicant's HHG were packed and picked up by a mover, the carrier/moving company documented the weight of his HHG as 14,920 pounds.

3.  On 29 May 2012, when his HHG were delivered, the carrier documented the weight of his HHG as 14,640 pounds.  Therefore, his argument that his household goods may have been weighed along with another person's property prior to being shipped has merit.  Nevertheless, his HHG that he and the carrier verified upon delivery still exceeded his authorized weight limit of 9,000 pounds.

4.  It appears the applicant executed a partial DITY move and moved some of his HHG himself.  He provided a state certificate of weights and measures, dated
31 May 2012, showing the portion of his HHG that he moved himself weighed 4,640 pounds.  However, these items were not shipped by the movers/carrier and, therefore, have no bearing on the debt he incurred.

5.  A DFAS official states his debt and supplemental debt were revised twice because his HHG were reweighed and he received credit for 204 pounds of professional items.  As a result his total debt was adjusted from $5,466.20 to $4,981.96.

6.  He has provided insufficient evidence and argument to show the weight recorded at the time his HHG were delivered is inaccurate.  Additionally, his HHG have been reweighed and his debt was revised by DFAS on two separate occasions in an attempt to lower his total debt.  The evidence of record shows he exceeded his authorized HHG weight and as a result, incurred a debt to the government.

7.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's 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)                                         AR20130006523



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130006523



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1