IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	 8 April 2014 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130011724 


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 remission of the $4,079.37 debt he incurred as a result of exceeding the authorized weight for his household goods (HHG).

2.  The applicant states:

   a.  He is requesting the debt of $4,079.37 he is repaying be rescinded and all payments he has made to date be refunded to him.  In October 2010, his HHG were shipped from Woodbridge, VA, to Topeka, KS, and did not exceed his authorized weight allowance.  The system employed by the Department of Defense (DOD) for the shipment of HHG did not afford him the opportunity to challenge the weight ticket submitted by the carrier. 
   
   b.  In June 2008, he relocated from El Paso, TX, to Carlisle, PA, and his HHG exceeded his authorized weight allowance by 400 pounds (lbs).  Consequently, he incurred a debt which he subsequently repaid.  To avoid any future excess weight charges, he began to reduce the amount of his HHG.  In June 2009, he relocated from Carlisle, PA, to Woodbridge, VA, and his HHG did not exceed what he was authorized.  He continued to reduce the amount of his HHG.
   
   c.  According to the carrier weight ticket, in October 2010, when he relocated from Woodbridge, VA, to Topeka, KS, he acquired 6,700 additional pounds (lbs) of HHG during his 14 months residing in Virginia.  On 6 January 2012, he received notification of indebtedness due to the shipment of excess HHG.  On 24 January 2012, he sent a rebuttal of the debt to Mr. JC, Joint Personnel Property Shipping Office (JPPSO), Fort Belvoir, VA.  On 26 January 2012, he was notified by Mr. JC that the Quality Control Division (QCD) sited there was "insufficient evidence to conclude impropriety on behalf of the local agent or carrier.  In addition, the certified weight tickets and inventory does not depict any foul play or any intent to defraud DOD.  Finally, and regrettably, this shipment was not reweighed prior to delivery, which could have eliminated or mitigated excess costs." 
   
   d.  On 9 February 2012, he submitted his rebuttal to Mr. JC for forwarding to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff (ODCS), G-4.  On 17 February 2012, he received notification that Mr. GT, Team Leader, Personal Property/Passenger Policy, ODCS, G-4, authorized him an "exception to policy in accordance with Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR), paragraph U535-F, to allow a one-time only 20 percent (%) packing allowance.  On 17 February 2012, he received notification from DFAS that his HHG debt had been revised to $4,079.73 to show pro-gear.
   
   e.  In September/October 2010, the Defense Transportation Regulation (DTR), part IV (Personal Property), governed shipment management and tender of service for transportation service providers (TSP).  The DTR stated the TSP must provide the PPSO with weight tickets within 7 days after pickup via the Defense Personal Property System (DPS) and/or telephonically prior to delivery.  DPS automatically generates a reweigh request for shipments exceeding a customer's authorized weight allowance and inserts an accessorial in the PPSO queue for preapproval.  The regulation further stated "the member/employee will be initially notified in counseling after the shipment has been picked up and weighed, or at destination prior to shipment delivery."  The TSP agrees to "reweigh a shipment upon the request of the origin or destination PPSO…"  The regulation does not require the TSP to provide the member/employee a copy of the certified weight ticket at anytime during the process.
   
   f.  Mr. JC, President, Studdard Relocation Services, Lee's Summit, MO, a TSP who routinely works with the Fort Leavenworth PPSO, stated "us movers know the customers who exceed their allowances will result in a request from PPSO/JPPSO to perform a reweigh, so we just routinely do it without being asked."
   
   g.  At no time during the movement process did he receive notification of excess weight.  During pre-move counseling, he estimated his weight to be within his authorized allowance based on the actual shipment of HHG 14 months prior.  During the carrier's pre-move counseling, neither he nor his spouse received notification of estimated excess weight.  The carrier's weight estimate, provided to him by Mr. JC during the initial rebuttal process, was not signed by him or his spouse.
   h.  According to the DTR, one method for estimating weight was to figure 1000 lbs per room and then add the estimated weight of large appliances and items in the garage, storage areas, and/or bathrooms.  His residence in Pennsylvania had 2,696 total square feet and the residence in VA had 2,658 total square feet.  Another method is to estimate 1000 lbs per page of inventory.  For his move from Texas to Pennsylvania TSP utilized 20 pages and the net weight totaled 23,700.  For the move from Pennsylvania to Virginia TSP utilized 20 pages and the net weight totaled 20,700.  For the move from Virginia to Kansas TSP utilized 28 pages and the net weight totaled 28,680 lbs.  However, a line by line comparison of the inventory sheets from Pennsylvania to Virginia and Virginia to Kansas showed they shipped the same HHG.
   
   i.  After the carrier packed his HHG, he was not notified of the excess weight based on the certified weight ticket.  He was not notified by the JPPSO/PPSO in Virginia or Kansas.  According to Mr. JT, U.S. Transportation Command, contrary to the DTR, DPS does not auto-generate reweigh requests.  It was identified for fix in an upcoming DPS contract.  The DPS shows his correct contact information and the actual net weight but not when the information was put in the system.  Prior to delivery, he was still not notified, telephonically or by email.
   
   j.  His initial rebuttal to the VA JPPSO was denied based on a lack of evidence and his failure to request a reweigh prior to delivery.  He maintains the net weight of his HHG was within his authorized weight limit and the JPPSO/PPSO in Virginia and Kansas failed to properly adhere to the regulation.  He was not notified or counseled that excess costs possibly existed which denied him the opportunity to ask for a reweigh prior to delivery.  Once the TSP provided the net weight via DPS, PPSO may order a reweigh when possible excess costs exist.  It is reasonable to expect an excess weight of 6,700 lbs over the authorized weight would have triggered the KS PPSO to direct a reweigh.
   
   k.  After his initial rebuttal was disapproved, he submitted a formal rebuttal and, although this process mitigated his financial obligation, it failed to identify the procedural mistakes he noted above.  He subsequently submitted a complaint to the Department of the Army Inspector General (DAIG) that was referred to the Army Materiel Command IG and then the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (hereafter referred to as (CID)).  Although CID examined the actions of the TPS to include their performance history, CID found no irregularities.  Sadly, the IG that ultimately received his complaint failed to ensure he received due process.  He believes the negligence of the origin and/or destination PPSO directly contributed to the process failure.



3.  The applicant provides:

* three memoranda, one undated and two dated 6 January 2012 and 9 February 2012, respectively
* 22 pages of email, dated between 24 September 2010 and 9 May 2013
* a Government Bill of Lading Correction Notice, dated 15 March 2012
* a 28-page Relocation Services Descriptive [HHG] Inventory, dated 28 September 2010
* two DD Forms 619 (Statement of Accessorial Services Performed), dated 30 September 2010 and 27 June 2008
* five automated Leave and Earnings Statement (LES) printouts, for the months of January through May 2012
* 12 Defense Finance and Accounting Service Forms 702 (DFAS Military LES), for the months of June 2012 through May 2013
* a letter, dated 1 May 2012
* A DD Form 139 (Pay Adjustment Authorization), dated 2 December 2011
* three Bills of Lading, dated 4 June 2008, 27 May 2009, and 24 September 2010
* three scale/weight tickets, dated 17 June 2009, 18 June 2009, and 30 September 2010
* a self-authored statement, dated 26 February 2010
* three pages titled Table of Measurements
* three pages titled Item Numbers/Item Description
* six pages titled Tab 1 - Boxes Carlisle to Woodbridge
* eight pages titled Tab 2 - Boxes Woodbridge to Topeka
* five pages titled Tab 3 - Furniture Matches
* one page titled Tab 4 - Probable Matches
* one page titled Tab 5 - Carlisle-Woodbridge Only
* two pages titled Tab 6 - Woodbridge-Topeka Only
* one page titled Tab 7 - Known Discrepancies 
* two carrier weight tickets, each dated 26 June 2008
* two house appraisal packets, dated 8 May 2008 and 5 June 2009
* Pay Adjustment Authorization forms, dated 26 May 2009
* Shipment Payment Summary Report, dated 26 May 2009
* pay inquiry printout, undated
* A DD Form 2278 (Application for Do It Yourself (DITY) and Counseling Checklist), dated 27 May 2009
* two DD Forms 1299 (Application for Shipment and/or Storage of Personnel and/or Storage of Personal Property), both dated 27 May 2009
* Bill of Lading Correction Notice, dated 7 August 2009
* three orders, dated 18 April 2008, 29 May 2009, and 8 September 2010
* three HHG Descriptive Inventory forms, dated 24 June 2008, 1 July 2008, and 19 June 2009
* A DD Form 1780 (Shipment Evaluation and Inspection Required), dated 1 July 2008
* 14 pages of the DTR
* two pages of the JFTR
* two pages titled 2009 U.S. Army Posture Statement
* two pages of Army Regulation 20-1 (IG Activities and Procedures)
* four pages of the Defense Personal Property System (DPS) computer screen printouts

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was appointed as a Regular Army second lieutenant and he executed an oath of office on 28 May 1986.  He served in staff and leadership positions and he was promoted to the rank/grade of colonel (COL)/O-6 on 1 May 2008.

2.  In September 2010, pursuant to his permanent change of station (PCS) move he shipped HHG from his residence in Woodbridge, VA to Topeka, KS.  The carrier for his HHG was Ace Relocation Systems (ARS), Inc.

3.  The applicant provides a:

* Bill of Lading, dated 4 June 2008, issued by A Van/Storage, wherein it shows his HHG had a net weight of 23,700 lbs for his move from Texas to Pennsylvania
* Bill of Lading, dated 27 May 2009, issued by Atlas Van Lines, wherein it shows his HHG had a net weight of 20,720 lbs for his move from Pennsylvania to Virginia
* Table of Measurements, dated 22 September 2010, wherein it shows a survey conducted by ARS estimated the total weight of his HHG shipment was estimated as 28,343 lbs
* email, dated 24 September 2010, to the applicant from the Military Move Management Coordinator, Wichita Falls, TX, asking him to review the attached Government Bill of Lading for accuracy 
* Bill of Lading, dated 24 September 2010, issued by Albert Container Concepts, wherein it shows his HHG had a net weight of 28,680 lbs
* 28-page Relocation Services Descriptive [HHG] Inventory list that shows the applicant signed for the delivery of his HHG at his Topeka, KS, residence on 28 September 2010 

4.  The applicant also provides a DD Form 139, dated 2 December 2011, from DFAS wherein it shows he shipped HHG that had a net weight of 28,680 lbs less 1,980 lbs of professional items and 2,670 lbs for packing material.  This equaled 24,030 lbs.  As he was authorized to ship 18,000 lbs of HHG, he exceeded his authorized weight by 6,700 lbs and incurred a debt of $8,183.18.  

5.  On 24 January 2012, he submitted a rebuttal of the debt to Mr. JC, JPPSO, Fort Belvoir.  His rebuttal was subsequently denied due a lack of evidence that the carrier had committed any impropriety on the certified weight tickets.

6.  On 9 February 2012, he resubmitted a second rebuttal of the debt to the ODCS, G-4.  As a result, he was allowed an additional 10% packing allowance (for a total of 20%) and his debt was reduced over 50% from $8,183.18 to $4,079.73.

7.  During the processing of this case, on 27 September 2013, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Transportation Policy Division, ODCS, G-4.  The advisory official recommended denial of the applicant's request and opined:

	a.  The JFTR contains basic statutory regulations concerning a service member's travel and transportation entitlements.  The weight of each shipment of HHG will be determined in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations.  JFTR, paragraphs U5325-U5340 specifically addresses weigh allowances.  The HHG weight is determined by subtracting 10% from the net weight of 28,600.  

	b.  The Secretarial Process authorized the applicant an exception to policy and an additional 10%  packing allowance for a total of 20%.  All shipping documents, to include weight tickets and inventory sheets establish the applicant shipped a total 28,680 lbs less 1,980 lbs of professional items.  The applicant or his designated agent signed all 28 pages of HHG inventory sheets upon delivery and the average computed weight per page is 1,000 lbs per sheet. 

8.  In a response to the advisory opinion, dated 17 October 2013, the applicant stated:

	a. It should be noted that the advisory official is the same individual who responded to his second rebuttal of the debt.  The advisory official sites the JFTR as the governing authority concerning the movement of HHG but fails to address all of the regulatory requirements.  He did not address the regulatory requirement for the PPSO to counsel him after the HHG have been picked up and weighed or at the destination prior to delivery if the authorized weight limit is exceeded.  

	b.  The advisory official's assertion that the paperwork establishes he shipped 28,680 lbs is incorrect.  However, he was not provided due process; if he had been afforded the opportunity to request a reweigh then the advisory official's conclusion would be fact.  He cannot provide an alternative ticket because the Government failed to adhere to the regulatory process.  He did sign for the HHG upon delivery that showed a weight of 28,680 lbs; however, the DTR contains procedures that if followed would have provided the Government and him the opportunity to request a reweigh.

	c.  He was not notified of the excess weight until he received the collection notice.  He signed for his property because he shipped the same property 14 months prior and had no reason to believe he shipped excess weight.  He and his spouse did not acquire over 6,000 lbs of HHG during their brief stay in Virginia.

9.  The applicant provides part of the DTR wherein, in part, it stated:

	a.  To avoid excess weight charges stay within your authorized weight allowance.  When you receive notification for exceeding your weight limit, check it carefully.  If you have any questions concerning your excess weight contact the transportation office (TO).  The TO at origin or destination can authorize a reweigh of your personal property shipment at your request (emphasis added).

	b.  The PPSO must request a reweigh for shipments exceeding the JFTR weight allowance.  If the member requests a reweigh either the PPSO or the TSP must enter the request in the DPS as a pre-approval.  The PPSO may order a reweigh when possible excess costs exists or when the accuracy of the weight is in question.

10.  The JFTR, Volume One (Uniformed Service Members), paragraph U5310 (Basic allowances) states the authorized weight allowance is 18,000 pounds for Soldiers in the pay grade of O-6, with dependents, who perform a PCS move.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant argues he did not ship as much weight as indicated in the Bill of Lading and contends his HHG should have been reweighed prior to delivery at his residence in Kansas. 

2.  His argument that regulations were not properly followed is noted; however, the DTR he provided stated the PPSO may order a reweigh of HHG when possible but it does not require them to do so.  The responsibility for requesting a reweigh of HHG is on the service member.
3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was properly notified on 24 September 2010, when his HHG were picked up from his residence in Virginia, that his HHG had a total net weight of 28,680 lbs.  As he had made two prior PCS moves in 2008 and 2009, he should have been knowledgeable at that time that his HHG may have exceeded his authorized weight allowance of 18,000 lbs and could have contacted the transportation office to dispute the weight and see what his options were.  He did not provide any evidence that shows he disputed the weight recorded on the Bill of Lading he was provided.  

4.  In addition, he also signed the 28-page HHG inventory list upon delivery of his HHG in Kansas that showed the net shipment weight was 28,680 and did not dispute the weight at that time.  However, as a result of his rebuttal to the debt he incurred, he received an additional 10% deduction for packing allowance and his debt was reduced by over 50%, from $8,183.18 to $4,079.37.  

5.  He has provided insufficient evidence and argument to show the weight recorded at the time his HHG were picked up and delivered was inaccurate.  The evidence of record shows he exceeded his authorized HHG weight and, as a result, incurred a debt to the government.

6.  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)                                         AR20130011724





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130011724



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1