DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

LCC
Docket No. 12354-08

31 Mar 09
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records

To: Secretary of the Navy

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO s ie

 

Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/fattachments
(2) No cost PCS Orders
(3) Petitioner’s req to include funds in PCS orders
(4) CO’s request to include PCS funds
(5) Para U5355B.2, JFTR
(6) Constructive weight of HHG & Weight authorized by

JETR
{7} Para U5320D.3b, JFTR
(8) CMC memo 7000 MMIA of 14 Sep 07
(9) Subject’s microfiche record

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject,
hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written
application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in
effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show
Petitioner was authorized a funded Permanent Change of Station
(pcs) move from his prior duty station (Camp Pendleton) to his
current duty station (Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego CA)
vice an unfunded “Low/No Cost Permanent Change of Assignment
(PCA) ." I£ approved, he also seeks entitlement to payment of
travel pay from eRe Ji Mili: Single
Dislocation Allowance (DLA) and an incentive payment for moving
his household goods (HHG).

 

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. George, Pfeiffer, and
Zealman reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice
on 12 January 2009 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined
that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on
the available evidence of record. Documentary material
Docket No. 12354-08

considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval
records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record
pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice,
finds as follows:

a. Prior to filing enclosure (1) with this Board,
Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies afforded under
existing.law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b. Petitioner was issued No - cost PCA orders reassigning him
from ia: > SNR on 21 September 2006. He
was to report no later a. 2006. Enclosure (2). He
was to be further assigned as a Series Commander, Marine Corps
Recruit Depot with a seven-day training week running from 0500
to 2100 daily. Petitioner’s residence at the time was 64 miles
from the Marine Corps Recruit Depot.

 

c. Petitioner immediately sought to have the orders
modified to include funds for him to move at government expense
nearer to his prospective duty station. The request was not
forwarded to CMC due to administrative oversight. Petitioner’s
letter requesting his orders be modified is attached. Enclosure

(3).

d. On i November 2006, Petitioner moved at his own expense
so as to meet the reporting date specified in his orders.
Petitioner now resides at WRN ae - NN:

pei =His commuting distance to MCRD is now 12
Enclosures (Tt) and (3).

 
 
 
  

miles.

e. On 15 May 2007 the Commanding Officer (co), 3*°
Battalion, Recruit Training Regiment, MCRD, San Diego, CA
submitted a letter requesting that the orders be modified
retroactively to authorize PCS funding to reimburse Petitioner
for the move (which had already occurred). Enclosure (4). The
Commandant of the Marine Corps, Manpower Management, Integration
and Administration (Code MMIA), however, denied the request.
Enclosure (1).

f. The Commanding Officer, 3** Battalion, Recruit Training
Regiment, MCRD, San Diego, CA has certified the move was mission
essential, in the Government’s best interest, and was not
primarily for the member’s convenience. The CO was in paygrade
Docket No. 12354-08

0-5 as required by the Joint Federal Travel Regulations, Section
5, paragraph U5355B.1. Enclosure (5).

g. Petitioner states that he rented a U-haul truck to
perform the move. He does not have any receipts for renting the
truck or receipts for other costs associated with the move. He
does not have any weight tickets to verify the weight of the
property moved. He has submitted an Inventory of the Household
Goods (HHG) he moved. Enclosure (6).

h. When the actual weight of a shipment of HHG is not
available, paragraph U5335E, JFTR authorizes a “constructive”
weight to be estimated based on an inventory. Enclosure (7).

i. Based on Petitioner’s inventory, it is estimated that he
moved 4,578 pounds of household goods. Had he been authorized a
funded PCS move initially, his maximum weight limit would have
been 12,500 pounds at government expense. _

jy. In correspondence attached as enclosure (8), the office
having cognizance over the subject matter involved in
Petitioner’s application recommended denial, commenting that, in
their opinion, no relief was warranted. They note that the
Petitioner was counseled that the orders were no cost orders and
he was not entitled to move at government expense. The .
relocation of his household was not in compliance with his
orders and was therefore at his own expense.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record,
notwithstanding the comments contained in enclosure (8), the

. Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the
requested relief. The Board carefully considered the comments
contained in enclosure (8). However, the Board agreed with the
comments of Petitioner’s commanding officer to the effect that
based on Petitioner’s assignment as a Series Commander, it was
in the government's best interest, as well as the interest of »
the safety of the Petitioner, to authorize a move that would
reduce the Petitioner’s daily commute. Accordingly, it was the
Board’s view that Petitioner's initial request to have the
orders modified to include funds for him to move at government
expense should have been granted. Because that initial request
was not forwarded to CMC due to administrative oversight that
was no fault of the Petitioner, the Board finds that retroactive
Docket No. 12354-08

relief should be granted. The Board found that a request for
payment associated with the movement of about 4,578 pounds of
personal property was reasonable and not excessive under the
circumstances. This was determined to be especially true
because the Petitioner would have been authorized to move
substantially more than his inventory shows that he actually
moved if his initial request had been approved. Accordingly,
the Board recommends the following corrective action.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate,
to show that:

a. Petitioner’s orders transferring him roma

ae, oe iggT a2 funded PCS orders. He is

ene eled to an incentive payment for moving his HHG based on a
constructive weight allowance of 4,578 pounds (calculated by
cubing the items listed on the DD Form 1701). Petitioner’s
incentive payment will not exceed what the cost would be to U.S.
Government for moving 4,578 pounds.

 

b. Petitioner is authorized payment of travel pay and per
diem from @aaeen ‘ ng ma = tle is also
authorized payment of Single Dislocation Allowance. (Petitioner
was in the grade of 1°* Lieutenant when he made the move).

 

c. Petitioner did not submit evidence of the cost for the
truck rental or other expense for moving fron RR
ia Accordingly, reimbursement of expenses for the

 

  
   

git

d. The incentive payment and. other allowances will be
charged to i init i

(Note: Petitioner should go to the closest facility which can
compute travel vouchers and ask them to compute monies due for
this action, i.e., travel pay and single dislocation allowance.

Petitioner must present to the Agency computing the money due a
copy of this letter, a copy of the reassignment orders. The

‘Agency making the computation for payment will not make the
actual payment but will give the completed computations to the
Petitioner. Petitioner will then forward the computation of
monies due, a copy of this letter to DFAS-IN/COR/Claims, 8899
Bast 56° Street, Department 3300 (Attn: COR/Claims),

rental truck and for other moving expenses cannot be authorized.
Docket No. 12354-08

Indianapolis, IN 46249-3300 will make payment of any money you
‘may be entitled to. The HHG section MC Logistics Base, Albany,
GA will compute the incentive payment due based on a
constructive weight of 4,578 pounds and notify DFAS/IN of
payment due to the Petitioner).

e. A copy of this Report of Proceedings will be filed in
Petitioner’s naval record.

4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's
review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and
complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above-entitled

matter. ;
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN WILLIAM J. - } III
Recorder Acting Recorder

5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your

review and action.
\yQoad !
W. DEAN

Reviewed and approved:

|v Vs COL

Wea 04

Robert T. Cali
Assistant General Counsel
Manpower and Reserve Affairs)