IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  4 June 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140019550 


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/cancellation of his debt for local temporary storage associated with the movement of his household goods out of non-temporary storage to Germany. 

2.  The applicant states that when he filled out his DD Form 1299 (Application for Shipment  and/or Storage of Personal Property) he requested a delivery date of 19 September 2014 and he subsequently received an email saying that his no-cost temporary storage would expire on 20 September 2014.  He goes on to state that when he was counseled by Stuttgart Transportation about the movement of his household goods, he was advised that “SIT” (Storage in Transit) was not authorized; however, he did not believe that this meant that he had to accept the earliest delivery date offered.  He also states that due to official correspondence he received, he did not believe he should pay any SIT costs. 

3.  The applicant provides five enclosures which include copies of his DD Form 1299, three emails and a DD Form 139 (Pay Adjustment Authorization). 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was serving as an Assistant Army Attache’ in the Ukraine in the rank of lieutenant colonel when he received orders dated 20 May 2014 transferring him to Stuttgart, Germany on 1 July 2014. 

2.  On 28 July 2014, the applicant completed a DD Form 1299 at the PPPO (Personal Property Processing Office) – Stuttgart in which he requested the shipment of household goods (HHGs) in non-temporary storage in Northern Virginia to Germany.  The scheduled date for delivery was listed as                   19 September 2014.  In the remarks section is the comment “Customer is aware that SIT is not authorized, customer will contact Fort Belvoir on 31 July to confirm a release date.”  The applicant initialed the form in all pertinent areas. 

3.  On 5 September 2014, the applicant received an email from the German Moving Company advising him that his HHGs shipment had arrived at their warehouse and was ready for delivery.  He was also advised that the earliest possible date for delivery was 8 September 2014; however, he had to respond within 3 hours in order to get that date as 3 days notice was required in order to put up no parking signs that would allow the truck space to park. 

4.  The applicant responded to the email on 9 September 2014 apologizing for his delay in responding and requesting a delivery date of 19 September 2014.  The Germany Moving Company representative requested a delivery address and contact phone number and indicated that he would get back in touch with the applicant.

5.  The German representative sent an email on 10 September confirming a     19 September delivery date and inquired as to whether parking was available.  The applicant responded to the effect that they would need to obtain the necessary permission to put up no parking signs.

6.  On 17 September 2014, the applicant received an email from the Installation Transportation Office – Ramstein advising him that they had received notification that SIT costs would not be authorized for his shipment and that he should request an exception to policy. 

7.  The applicant dispatched an email to officials at the BASOPS Transportation Division and explained that since he was a geographical bachelor at the moment because his wife was in Washington D.C for work until 18 September, and because he had three dogs, he requested a delivery date of 19 September so that his wife would be present to help properly receive the shipment.  He was  advised that he had initialed the DD Form 1299 indicating that he was not authorized SIT and that a request for an exception to policy would be sent to the Department of the Army.

8.  On 30 September 2014, the applicant received an email advising him that his request for an exception to policy had been denied by Headquarters, Department of the Army, G-4.  He was advised to apply to the Board.

9.  On 30 September 2014, a DD Form 139 was prepared by the PPPO – Stuttgart directing the finance office to charge the applicant $530.72 for excess storage costs. 

10.  On 1 October 2014, the applicant received an email advising him that his shipment had been placed in temporary storage which had an expiration date of 20 September 2014 and that the shipment would convert to his expense as of midnight on that date. 

11.  In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4 which opines that the applicant signed his DD Form 1299 verifying his awareness that no temporary storage of his HHGs was authorized upon arrival at destination.  Additionally, his geographical bachelor status and ownership of three dogs is a personal convenience issue with no bearing on obligating the government for excess costs when his residence was available to receive his HHGs on 8 September 2014.  Officials opined that the applicant was the direct cause of the 10 days of temporary storage at a cost of $542.22 and not a circumstance beyond his control.

12.  The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and he responded to the effect that had he known that not accepting the earliest delivery date would result in his being charged for temporary storage, he would not have delayed his shipment.  He also contends that unclear instructions by transportation personnel was the underlying cause of his being charged for his HHG’s storage costs. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that he should not be held liable for temporary storage costs associated with the delivery of his HHGs from Northern Virginia to Germany has been noted and appears to have merit.

2.  Notwithstanding the advisory opinion from the G-4 which opines that the applicant could have accepted the earliest delivery date of 8 September but chose not to do so because of personal convenience, it is noted that the email notification advising the applicant was dated 5 September and gave him 3 hours to respond in order to confirm that date.  

3.  The available evidence shows that he responded on 9 September and on    10 September the German Moving company confirmed a delivery date of          19 September, the same date he requested on 28 July 2014 and the PPPO entered as the scheduled delivery date on his DD Form 1299.

4.  Although his DD Form 1299 does indicate that he was advised that “SIT” was not authorized, it does not explain exactly what “SIT” entailed.  Furthermore, the fact that the same form indicated that he had a scheduled delivery date of         19 September would reasonably lead one to believe that any delays after that date would be at his own expense.

5.  This is further reinforced by the email notification to the applicant advising him that any delays after midnight 20 September 2014 would be at his expense.

6.  Therefore, it appears that the conflicting information provided to the applicant resulted in his being charged for the temporary storage of his HHGs from            8 September to 19 September 2014, a debt that could have been avoided had the applicant been properly advised and been given proper time of notification for delivery.

7.  It is noted that the moving company on 5 September notified the applicant that he had 3 hours to confirm a delivery date of 8 September and that it required      3 days to obtain permits to block off parking.  That date was never confirmed, therefore, it appears unfair to charge the applicant storage charges beginning on the 8 September given the circumstances of establishing a delivery date. 

8.  Accordingly, it seems only fair that the applicant be given any benefit of doubt in this case and based on the circumstances in this case, it does not appear that he was properly advised in regards to the consequences of not accepting the earliest delivery date offered.  Therefore, it would be appropriate in this case to cancel the debt by showing that it is an invalid debt and that any monies collected be returned to him.  

BOARD VOTE:

____X____  ___X_____  ___X_____  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION






BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing:

a. His local temporary storage associated with the movement of his household goods out of non-temporary storage to Germany was an invalid debt; and

b. returning any monies collected to the applicant. 



      _______ _   ___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)                                         AR20140019550





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140019550



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1