RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00741
		INDEX NUMBER:  128.10
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His indebtedness to the government in the amount of $1982.61 for multiple warehouse handling, drayage charges, and overweight shipment of household goods be remitted.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was advised that he had one year to establish a Home of Selection (HOS) and request shipment of his household goods after he retired.  His household goods were not delivered in accordance with the instructions he gave the Traffic Management Office resulting in the charges to him for multiple handling.

He was assessed the overweight charges two years after he received his household goods and does not feel that he was provided the opportunity to ask for a reweigh to insure that 10% of the weight was deducted for packing materials.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The pertinent facts relating to this application are contained in the evaluation prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force found at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Joint Personal Property Shipping Office recommends that the applicant be held liable for $199.92 in overweight charges only.   Since the applicant was authorized to ship household goods from his last permanent duty station to the HOS via the retirement processing station, but did not take delivery of the household goods at the processing station, the initial warehouse handling and storage at the processing station should be considered as services authorized incident to the line-haul shipment.  Since temporary storage and warehouse handling at the processing station are authorized charges, the applicant should only be held liable for the overweight charges.  The household goods were weighed on certified scales at both origin and destination and the weight obtained at both locations exceeded the authorized weight allowance.  He was given the benefit of the lower origin weight.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17 May 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

 _______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  We note that the applicant’s debt has already been reduced to $199.92.  We are persuaded by the evidence presented that this is a fair and equitable amount for the applicant to pay.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-00741 in Executive Session on 19 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Feb 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, JPPSO/CC, undated.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 May 02.