IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE:	  20 March 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130015994 


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 reimbursement for the shipment of his privately owned vehicle (POV) from an Overseas Continental United States (OCONUS) assignment due to an error in counseling.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  He believes he was improperly counseled regarding the shipment of his POV from an OCONUS assignment.

	b.  Decisions regarding the improper counseling were made without an effort to gain and review of the pertinent facts.

	c.  On 9 May 2013, during a telephone conversation, an Army official informed him that he could ship his POV at his expense and receive reimbursement up to the amount it would have cost the Government to ship it to the Dallas vehicle processing center (VPC).

	d.  Army officials at Fort Bliss, Texas and the Deputy Chief of Staff (G-4) denied his request for reimbursement based on Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR), paragraph U5425-B without an understanding of all of the facts available.

	e.  His reporting date to Fort Bliss, Texas was 15 July 2013 and he had been informed by his sponsor that he could deploy for up to 9 months as early as August 2013.

	f.  Based on what he was told, he explored alternate means of POV shipment from his assignment at the Canadian Forces College in Toronto, Canada, other than Government shipment.

	g.  The Dallas VPC is roughly a 20-hour round trip from Fort Bliss, Texas and he desired options that would allow him to maximize his time settling his family prior to deployment.

	h.  When preparing for his permanent change of station (PCS), he thought he read in a regulation provided to him by his house hold goods (HHG) counselor that shipment of a POV by a service member was possible.

	i.  It was his understanding that he could be reimbursed up to the amount that it would have cost the Government to ship the POV and that any additional costs would be his responsibility.

	j.  He spoke with four Army officials by telephone before he was transferred and spoke with an Army official who informed him that he only needed to bring all associated receipts and PCS orders reflecting he was authorized shipment of his POV.

	k.  Based on that telephone conversation he coordinated the shipment of his POV.

	l.  During his inprocessing at Fort Bliss, he went to the transportation office to get the required paperwork to process his claim for reimbursement.  

	m.  The receptionist informed him that reimbursement was not authorized.

	n.  He told the receptionist an Army official from "outbound" told him he was authorized reimbursement and all he needed was his receipts and orders.

	o.  The receptionist arranged for him to have a meeting with the Army official that told him he was authorized reimbursement and she did not recall the telephone conversation she had with him on 9 March 2013.  

	p.  The Army official stated she would have never told him he would be authorized reimbursement and he continued to try to convince her that she had counseled him that he could commercially ship his POV and receive reimbursement.


	r.  The Army official informed him that such an arrangement would have required authorized from his losing command.

	s.  He showed his orders to the Army official and asked her what his orders should have stated to give him authorization and she informed him that what was stated on his orders was enough to grant authorization.

	t.  The Army official gave him paperwork to file a claim and she explained to him how to fill out the paperwork and submit the claim through her office.

	u.  He later received a phone call from another Army official who informed him that his claim was denied.

	v.  The Army official later started a fact finding effort to see if he had been erroneously counseled regarding his POV shipment.  The Army official later called him to inform him that he could not receive reimbursement under JFTR, paragraph U5425-B (Transportation Methods), because no Army official had counseled him and told him he could receive reimbursement.

	w.  He was later sent paperwork to appeal to this Board.

	x.  If he had not received counseling by that Army official he would not have shipped his POV at his own expense.  He would have either shipped his POV at the expense of the Government to the Dallas VPC or driven his POV and received compensation for miles driven through finance.

	y.  He is seeking reimbursement under JFTR, paragraph U5425-B which states "An eligible member, who has not transported a POV at Government expense incident to a PCS, is authorized reimbursement for the expense incurred only if personally procured POV transportation was based on erroneous advice of a Government representative." 

	z.  The cost of commercial shipment of his POV was $1,200.00.

3.  The applicant provides:

* Self-authored Memorandum for Record, dated 26 August 2013
* Numerous emails between him and Army officials
* Handwritten, undated travel notes
* Headquarters, United States Army Training Center Orders 084-150, dated 25 March 2013


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  With prior enlisted service, the applicant accepted an appointment as a Reserve commissioned officer in the rank of second lieutenant on 22 December 2000.  He was promoted through the ranks to major.

2.  On 9 March 2012, Headquarters, National Training Center and Fort Irwin Orders 069-109 were published directing the applicant to PCS to attend the Intermediate Level Education (ILE) Pre-course with Temporary Duty (TDY) en-route.  His orders show he was to be assigned to the United States Army Student Detachment, Fort Jackson, South Carolina, with duty at Canadian Forces Command and Staff College, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.  His orders show his reporting date was 23 July 2012.

3.  On 25 March 2013, Headquarters, United States Army Training Center Orders 084-150 were published directing the applicant to PCS to Fort Bliss, Texas.  His orders show a reporting date of 15 July 2013.  His orders also state in item (p) "shipment of his POV is authorized."

4.  The available evidence shows that on 24 May 2012, the applicant's spouse made a $1,200.00 payment by credit card to Door to Door Transport, 5360 W Hillsboro Blvd, Coconut Creek, Florida  33073.  The Order Receipt for Vehicle Transport shows his vehicle was to be picked-up from Buffalo, New York, on 18 June 2013 and shipped to El Paso, Texas, with a delivery date of 24 June 2013.

5.  On 24 July 2013, the applicant was at Fort Bliss, Texas when he submitted Instructions for Reimbursement.  On the forms he submitted he indicated that he shipped his POV from OCONUS.  On his Statement of Shipment of Household Goods and Personal Effects, he stated that instead of having the Government ship the vehicle from Toronto, Canada to the Dallas, Texas VPC, he shipped it to his PCS address in El Paso, Texas.  He stated he did this to save the 20-hour round trip between the VPC and his new residence.  He stated he understood he would be reimbursed the amount it would have cost the Government to ship his POV from Toronto to Dallas.

6.  The applicant provides email between him and Army officials.  In the emails he is contending that he was misinformed by Army officials regarding shipment of his POV.  The emails show that the individual that he contends misinformed him states that she does not recall ever speaking with the applicant on 9 March 2013 and that she would have never told him that he would be authorized reimbursement.  He also provides undated, handwritten travel notes in which he states he talked to an Army official, who stated he needed orders authorizing shipment of his POV and he needed all receipts.

7.  A review of the available evidence fails to reveal any evidence showing that the applicant was misinformed by Army officials regarding shipment of his POV.

8.  JFTR, paragraph U5405 (Eligibility), Note 2, states that under paragraph U5405-A1, a member may be authorized transportation of a POV when PCSing from a CONUS permanent duty station (PDS) to an OCONUS PDS, between two OCONUS PDSs, or from an OCONUS PDS to a CONUS PDS.  There is no authority to transport a member's POV from a CONUS location (e.g., at which the member left the POV while stationed overseas) to the new CONUS PDS, unless the POV was being stored at Government expense because it could not be transported to the OCONUS PDS in accordance with JFTR, paragraph U5466.

9.  JFTR, paragraph U5425-B, provides for personally procured transportation.  It states an eligible member, who has not transported a POV at the Government's expense incident to a PCS, is authorized reimbursement for the expense incurred only if personally procured POV transportation was based on erroneous advice of a Government representative (e.g., the TMO or ITO).  Reimbursement must not exceed the cost that would have incurred if the Government had arranged the transportation. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions have been noted.  His supporting evidence has been considered.

2.  There is no evidence in the available record, nor has the applicant submitted sufficient evidence supporting his contention that he was misinformed by Army officials regarding shipment of his POV.

3.  If the applicant had paid for the shipment of his POV from Canada to Texas he would have been authorized reimbursement; however, he did not.  He paid to ship his POV from Buffalo, New York to El Paso, Texas, which is from a CONUS location to another CONUS location.

4.  According to the JFTR, a member may be authorized transportation of a POV when PCSing from a CONUS PDS to an OCONUS PDS, between two OCONUS PDSs, or from an OCONUS PDS to a CONUS PDS.  There is no authority to transport a member's POV from a CONUS location to the new CONUS PDS, unless the POV was being stored at Government expense because it could not be transported to the OCONUS PDS in accordance with JFTR, paragraph U5466.

5.  The applicant is not authorized reimbursement for shipment of his POV within the CONUS.  He was provided an opportunity to ship his POV at the Government's expense from Canada to Texas.  For whatever his reasons, he chose to ship his POV from New York to Texas.  Reimbursing him for the shipment of his POV within the CONUS would be affording him a privilege not afforded to other Soldiers in similar situations and would be contrary to the applicable regulation. 

6.  The applicant has not shown error or injustice in the actions taken by the Army in his case.

7.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant's request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20130015994



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130015994



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1