DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2005-061 
 
 
   

 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Andrews, J. 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section  1552  of 
 
title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the 
application on February 10, 2005, upon receipt of the completed application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated January 5, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  to  show  that  he  owed  the 
Government  $5,304.00,  instead  of  $12,262.12,  for  the  expenses  incurred  in  moving  his 
family’s  household  goods  (HHG)  when  he  was  transferred  from  Xxxxxx  to  Alaska  in 
2004.  (The applicant’s household includes his spouse and three xxxxxxx.) 

 
The  applicant  stated  that  when  planning  the  move,  he  knew  that  his  family’s 
HHG would exceed 17,000 pounds, which was the allowed weight for someone of his 
rank with dependents.  Therefore, he asked the Transportation Office at xxxxxxxxx AFB 
about how much the overage would cost him.  They said that “there was no way to give 
him  a  cost  estimate”  but  that  “normal  overage  costs  were  around  $1.00/lb.”    He 
decided he was willing to pay this much.  However, he was ultimately billed $12,262.12 
for 6,495 pounds of overage (or about $1.89 per pound).   

 
The applicant stated that his belief that $1 per pound was correct was reasonable, 
given  the  military’s  “Do  It  Yourself,”  or  DITY,  program,  under  which  members  are 
supposed to receive 95% of what it would cost the Government to move them if they 
move  themselves.    He  stated  that  under  the  DITY  program,  members  are  being  paid 

about 90 cents per pound.  The applicant alleged that personnel at the Air Force Trans-
portation Office also directed him to a DITY web site that allows members to calculate 
their moving costs. When he visited this military web site, the calculator showed that 
the Government’s cost for moving 6,500 pounds of HHG from his old location in Xxxxx, 
Xxxxxx, to his new location in Kodiak, Alaska, was $5,304.00.1   

 
The applicant stated that no one at the Transportation Office would give him a 
written statement about what they had advised him.  He further stated that he under-
stands that he is responsible for the full amount but believes that he and other transfer-
ring members should receive more accurate counseling.  He asked the Board to reduce 
the total cost of his HHG overage charge to $5,304.00. 

 
The  applicant  submitted  a  copy  of  the  Pay  Adjustment  Authorization,  which 
shows that the total cost of the move was $55,212.59 and that the total weight shipped 
(including a packing tare) was 29,245 pounds (which suggests a cost of about $1.89 per 
pound).  It further shows that the applicant was charged for 6,495 pounds of overage, 
which resulted in a cost to him of $12,262.12.  The applicant also submitted a copy of the 
bill of lading for his move.  The bill shows that the total weight of his HHG, including 
packing materials, was 29,245 pounds; that the charge for line-haul transportation was 
$8,369.92;  that  the  charge  for  packing/unpacking  was  $13,816.14;  and  that  there  were 
other/accessorial service charges of $2,286.06 and $418.50, for a total of $24,890.62.  It 
further shows that there was a tariff or special rate authority of 190%.  The bill of lading 
does not state that the total cost of the move was $55,212.59; nor is it clear from the bill 
of  lading  how  the  total  cost  amounted  to  that  figure.    A  “Statement  of  Accessorial 
Services  Performed”  indicates  that  the  applicant  shipped  351  cartons,  “dish  packs,” 
“wardrobes,”  and  mattresses;  46  corrugated  containers  of  special  construction;  and  3 
crates with a total of 325 cubic feet. 
 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On May 23, 2005, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submit-
ted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board dismiss the case for lack of juris-
diction.  
 
The JAG argued that the Board lacks jurisdiction because the applicant failed to 
exhaust his administrative remedies, as required under 33 C.F.R. § 52.13(b) by seeking 
waiver of his debt pursuant to Article 11.F. of the Pay Manual.  He submitted a copy of 

                                                 
1 The web  site  in  question,  <>  is owned by the  Navy, 
and it purports to allow servicemembers to calculate how much they will receive from the Government if 
they move their own HHG instead of having the Government move it for them.  However, the maximum 
estimated  weight  one  may  enter  into  the  calculation  is  18,000  pounds.    Therefore,  it  is  not  possible  to 
enter  the  full  amount  that  the  applicant  moved.    If  one  enters  just  6,500  pounds  (the  applicant’s 
approximate overage), the calculator does show the Government’s cost as $5,304.00. 

an e-mail message from a chief warrant officer (CWO F) in the Military Compensation 
Branch, who stated that the branch has no record of the applicant applying for a waiver 
during the past two years. 

 
Furthermore,  the  JAG  argued,  the  applicant  “does  not  contest  the  weights 
recorded for his household goods shipment; therefore, there is no error for the Board to 
correct.”  The JAG argued that the record shows that the applicant knew the weight of 
his  HHG  was  over  the  limit,  knew  that  he  would  be  responsible  for  the  cost,  and 
admitted that Air Force personnel told him that there was no way to give him a cost 
estimate. 

 
The  JAG  also  argued  that  the  applicant’s  request  for  a  reduced  debt  would  be 
“an inappropriate remedy for the Board to entertain.  When applicants receive mone-
tary payments as a result of Board action, it is always as a collateral consequence of the 
Board’s correction of an error or injustice in their records.  The Board is not empowered 
to forgive debts to the government.  That said, there is no injustice present that should 
even cause the Board to entertain such a course of action.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On June 16, 2005, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  He 
stated  that  he  had  tried  to  apply  for  a  waiver  but  that  his  unit’s  Personnel  Division 
Senior Chief told him that the waiver process did not apply to his situation.  He stated 
that the waiver process would apply only if the amount charged by the moving com-
pany had been in error.  In his case, it was the pre-move information he received from 
the Transportation Office about the cost per pound he would be charged that was erro-
neous.  In support of this allegation, the applicant submitted an e-mail message from 
CWO F of the Military Compensation Branch, who wrote that the applicant’s “situation 
is  not  appropriate  for  relief  though  the  waiver  or  remission  process.    Remissions  are 
available  only  to  enlisted  personnel,  and  waivers  (and  remissions)  only  apply  in 
instances where a member was erroneously overpaid funds.  A waiver is NOT proper 
recourse for situations where a member [is] … in debt to the government for services or 
supplies rendered.” 
 

The  applicant  stated  that  he  now  knows  that  the  Transportation  Office  should 
have told him to contact directly the mover that the Government would hire to trans-
port  his  goods.    Instead,  the  Transportation  Office  told  him  that  even  the  movers 
“would not know the cost until the move was delivered to its destination.”  He argued 
that  although  he  received  the  bad  advice  from  Air  Force  personnel,  the  Coast  Guard 
directed him to seek counseling from the Air Force Transportation Office. 
 
 
The applicant further argued that the excessive debt is an appropriate injustice 
for the Board to correct because he tried to get accurate information from the office to 

which he was directed by the Coast Guard but was miscounseled.  He stated that his 
sworn statement that he was told that the cost would be about $1 per pound and the 
web  site  calculator’s  calculations  are  strong  evidence  of  the  injustice  of  the  debt.    He 
argued  that  having  to  pay  more  than  $6,000  above  what  he  expected  to  pay  for  the 
overage because of misinformation he received from the Transportation Office is a sig-
nificant injustice given that he “used an authorized government supported web site to 
calculate my overage cost as directed by a government expert.” 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Article 11.F. of the Coast Guard Pay Manual states that under 10 U.S.C. § 2774, 
the  Secretary  may  waive  “claims  for  erroneous  payments  of  pay  and  allowances  and 
travel  and  transportation  allowances,  when  collection  of  the  claim  would  be  against 
equity and good conscience, and not in the best interest of the United States.”  A “waiv-
er” is defined as “cancellation of an indebtedness to the U. S. Government which result-
ed from erroneous payments of pay and allowances made to or on behalf of the mem-
ber or former member.  Waiver applications may also be considered for erroneous pay-
ment of travel and transportation allowances paid on or after 28 December 1985.” 

 
Article 11.G. of the Pay Manual provides that under 14 U.S.C. § 461, the Secretary 
may remit or cancel the debt of an enlisted member to the United States “when recovery 
would be against equity and good conscience.”  Subparagraph 4. states that the follow-
ing: 

 
Remission  or  cancellation  of  indebtedness  will  be  granted  by  Commandant  (G-WPM) 
only when it is determined that such action is in the best interest of the United States. In 
making this determination, the following are among the factors which will be considered: 
a.  Injustice.  Remission  or  cancellation  of  the  indebtedness  may  be  granted  in 
order  to  correct  obvious  wrongs  or  misrepresentations  on  the  part  of  the  Government 
which are caused by individuals acting in an official capacity. When an enlisted person 
has received an overpayment in good faith, without fault or knowledge, but because of 
error  on  the  part  of  the  Government,  enforced  collection  of  the  resultant  indebtedness 
may amount to an injustice.  However, error on the part of the Government will not, of 
itself, be a basis for granting remission or cancellation. 

b.  Hardship.  Hardship  in  this  sense  may  exist  when  collection  of  indebtedness 

would cause a financial hardship on an enlisted member or the member’s family. 
 
Article 4.H.9.e. of the Personnel Manual concerns transferring HHG pursuant to 
a transfer to a unit outside the continental United States (OCONUS) and states the fol-
lowing in pertinent part:  
 

The  pamphlet  “It’s  Your  Move,”  COMDTPUB  P4050.5,  contains  guidance  for  members 
proceeding overseas.  It is in the public interest to avoid spending public funds unneces-
sarily in shipping privately owned household goods to and from overseas.  Additionally, 
it  is  in  the  member’s  interest  to  prevent  unneeded  wear  and  tear  on  his  or  her  goods 
resulting from such shipments.  Members receiving orders to an overseas duty station are 

strongly encouraged to seek counseling from their local transportation officer regarding 
overseas  entitlements,  restrictions  on  POV  size,  and  communicate  with  their  new  com-
mand well in advance of transfer date.  … 

 
 
“It’s Your Move,” COMDTPUB P4050.5, notes that under the Joint Federal Travel 
Regulations  (JFTR),  the  HHG  weight  allowance  for  a  LCDR/O-4  transferring  with 
dependents is 17,000 pounds.  It also states the following in pertinent part: 
 

1-2.  Entitlements 
a.    You  weight  allowance  is  established  under  provisions  of  the  Joint  Federal  Travel 
Regulations  and  is  the  maximum  weight  you  can  move  at  government  expense.    This 
allowance includes the weight of household goods you ship, place in storage or send as 
unaccompanied baggage. 
b.  You—not your transportation officer or the carrier—are responsible for staying within 
the  weight  allowance.    If  the  weight  of  items  packed,  shipped  or  stored  exceeds  your 
weight allowance, you must pay all charges connected with the excess weight. 

•  •  • 

1-4.  Excess Weight Can Cost Big Money 
a.  The  total  weight  of  property  shipped  and  stored  cannot  exceed  your  authorized 
weight allowance.  Exceeding your authorized weight allowance on a domestic or inter-
national move can cost you a lot of  money.  Charges for excess weight can range from 
several hundred to several thousand dollars. 
b.  Notification of overweight charges can take several months after your move has been 
completed. …  If you have any questions, contact your transportation office. 

2-2.  Who to See 
a.    The  Army,  Navy,  Air  Force,  Marine  Corps  and  Coast  Guard  operate  transportation 
offices.  Regardless of which branch of service arranges your move, you will get the enti-
tlement and service authorized by your branch. 

•  •  • 

 
 
ALCOAST  195/05  notes  that  “[d]uring  the  2004  shipping  season,  numerous 
members  experienced  personal  inconveniences  and  were  held  financially  responsible 
for substantial excess costs in conjunction with their HHG shipments.”  The ALCOAST 
directs members to consult a local transportation office for counseling concerning HHG 
or DITY moves and notes that members doing DITY moves are reimbursed “95 percent 
of  what  the  government  constructed  cost  would  have  been,  based  on  the  weight  of 
HHG and distance moved.”  
 
 
The  Department  of  Defense’s  Surface  Deployment  and  Distribution  Command 
issued  a  “Domestic  Personal  Property  Rate  Solicitation”  on  November  1,  2001,  which 
indicates that the line haul rate paid by the Government for moving a member’s prop-
erty depends on many factors, including distances, diesel fuel prices, special handling 
and packing of bulky or special items, staircases, road tolls, waiting time, etc. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and appli-
cable law: 
 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  

The application was timely.  
 

2. 

 Although the JAG argued that the applicant did not exhaust his adminis-
trative  remedies,  the  Board  disagrees.    Article  11.G.  of  the  Pay  Manual  allows  only 
enlisted members to seek remission of a debt to the Government and so does not apply 
to the applicant because he is an officer.  Article 11.F. of the Pay Manual allows enlisted 
members or officers to seek a waiver of a debt collection when they have been errone-
ously paid money to which they were not actually entitled.  As indicated by CWO F of 
the Military Compensation Branch, Article 11.F. does not apply to the applicant’s situa-
tion because he has not been overpaid any money with respect to his move from Xxxxx, 
Xxxxxx,  to  Kodiak,  Alaska.    Therefore,  the  Board  concludes  that  the  applicant  has 
exhausted his administrative remedies.  

 
3. 

4. 

for  packing  and  unpacking;  and  $2,286.06  and  $418.50 

The applicant alleged that he was misled by personnel at his local Trans-
portation Office about the likely cost of his move to Kodiak and therefore unexpectedly 
and unfairly incurred a debt that was approximately double what he had anticipated.  
He alleged that he was told that normal moving charges were about $1.00 per pound, 
but he was ultimately charged about $1.89 per pound for his 6,495 pounds of overage.  
The  bill  of  lading  submitted  by  the  applicant  does  not  clearly  indicate  a  monetary 
amount per pound and shows, instead, charges of $8,369.92 for line-haul transportation; 
$13,816.14 
for 
“other/accessorial” service charges, for a total of $24,890.62.  The applicant alleged that 
his belief that he would have to pay only about $1.00 per pound of overage was reason-
able  based  on  the  DITY  move  calculator,  which  shows  the  Government’s  cost  for 
moving 6,500 pounds from Xxxxx to Kodiak as $5,304.00.  The applicant also admitted, 
however, that personnel at the Transportation Office told him that “there was no way to 
give him a cost estimate” for his overage. 
 
According to the Surface Deployment and Distribution Command’s “Do-
 
mestic Personal Property Rate Solicitation,” the line haul rate paid by the Government 
for moving a member’s property depends on myriad factors, including distances, diesel 
fuel prices, special handling and packing of bulky or special items, staircases, highway 
tolls, ferry costs, waiting time, etc.  Although the applicant submitted a bill of lading for 
his move, the exact make-up of the total cost of the move is not clear.  However, Kodiak 
is about 3,X00 miles from Xxxxx, Xxxxxx, and the last leg of the journey by truck (if a 
truck  rather than  a  ship  was  the  primary  means  of  transportation)  is  a  200-mile  ferry 
ride from Seward, Alaska, to the island or a 150-mile ferry ride from Homer, Alaska.  In 
light  of  these  facts,  it  is  not  clear  to  the  Board  why  the  applicant  expected  “normal” 

5. 

overage costs to apply.  Moveover, the Board notes that according to the Department of 
Energy,  from  mid  February  2004  to  early  June  2004,  diesel  fuel  prices  in  Xxxxxx rose 
sharply from about $1.65 per gallon to about $2.20 per gallon.2  This increase and many 
other factors that could not have been known to or predicted by the personnel of the 
Transportation Office may have greatly affected the cost of the applicant’s move. 
 
 
 The applicant has not proved his allegation that he was misadvised about 
the potential costs of his overage.  Although he alleged that he was directed to use the 
Navy’s  on-line  DITY  move  calculator  to  estimate  the  cost  of  his  overage,  he  has  not 
proved this allegation, and the web site itself does not indicate that it should be used for 
that  purpose.    Assuming  arguendo  that  the  applicant  was  misadvised  and/or  insuf-
ficiently  advised,  he  has  not  suggested  or  proved  that  anyone  in  the  Transportation 
Office acted in bad faith in responding to his questions.  Nor has he shown that on the 
day he consulted them, they knew or should have known that the ultimate overage cost 
to him would amount to about $1.89 per pound instead of “around $1/lb.”  In addition, 
the  Board  notes  that  the  Government  is  not  estopped  from  repudiating  the  wrong  or 
insufficient  advice  of  its  employees,  including  the  wrong  or  insufficient  advice  of 
Transportation Office personnel,3 and under 14 U.S.C. § 461, Congress has intentionally 
limited the Secretary’s power to remit a debt to the debts of enlisted members.  
 

 

6. 

The booklet “It’s Your Move” does warn members that “[e]xceeding your 
authorized weight allowance on a domestic or international move can cost you a lot of 
money.  Charges for excess weight can range from several hundred to several thousand 
dollars.”  The applicant exceeded his weight allowance of 17,000 pounds by about one-
third and therefore owed $12,262.12 for the overage.  The Board agrees with the appli-
cant that, given his allegations about the insufficient and inaccurate advice he received 
from the Transportation Office and given the statement in ALCOAST 195/05 about the 
substantial  and  presumably  unanticipated  increase  in  overage  costs,  the  Coast  Guard 
could  and  should  do  a  better  job  of  ensuring  that  members  have  better  access  to 
information  about  the  potential  costs  of  overages  and  the  variety  of  factors  that  may 
greatly affect that cost.  However, in light of all the circumstances of this case, the Board 
finds that the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his debt 
of  $12,262.12  for  his  6,495  pounds  of  overage  was  either  erroneous  or  so  unjust  as  to 
“shock[] the sense of justice.”4 

 
7. 

 Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

                                                 
2  See . 
3 See 1980 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 2081 (B-197948, Dec. 29, 1980); Goldberg v. Weinberger, 546 F.2d 477, 481 
(2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied sub nom. Goldberg v. Califano, 431 U.S. 937 (1977); Montilla v. United States, 457 
F.2d 978, 987 (Ct. Cl. 1972). 
4 See Sawyer v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 860, 868 (1989), rev’d on other grounds, 930 F.2d 1577 (citing Reale v. 
United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976) (finding that for purposes of the BCMRs under 10 U.S.C. § 1552, 
“injustice” is treatment by military authorities that “shocks the sense of justice”). 

 

 
 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military 

ORDER 

 

record is denied. 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

______________________________  
 Stephen H. Barber 

______________________________ 
 Harold C. Davis, M.D. 

______________________________ 
 David Morgan Frost