RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00760
		INDEX CODE:  128.02

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The excess costs associated with the shipment of his truck be waived and he be reimbursed for payments made based on authority in DFAS-DEM 7073-1.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 16 Sep 03, he received a DD Form 139, Pay Adjustment Authorization, charging him $1256.45 for excess costs incurred for the shipment of his vehicle to XXXXX.  The Joint Personal Property Shipping Office (JPPSO) refuted his rebuttal by quoting the Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR) and placing the entire blame on him, totally ignoring the misinformation given by their port employees.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted supporting documents associated with his claim to JPPSO.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of captain.

Applicant made a permanent change of station (PCS) move from XXXX, to XXXX, per Special Order AD-1215, dated 14 May 03.  In conjunction with his PCS, he shipped an over-sized privately-owned-vehicle (POV) from the CONUS to XXXX.  Because the vehicle exceeded the authorized size of 20 measurement tons, his vehicle measured at 23.25 measurement tons, he was billed $1256.45 in excess cost charges for the oversized vehicle.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ JPPSO/ECAF recommended denial of the application.  In accordance with para U5405, JFTR, transportation of a POV for the member’s or dependents’ personal use may be authorized for a member when ordered to make a PCS to, from, or between OCONUS locations.  Para U5410-A provides that when a POV shipment is authorized, one POV not to exceed 20 measurement tons may be transported from the POV port or vehicle processing center (VPC) serving the old permanent duty station (PDS) to the unloading port/VPC serving the new PDS.

Unless an oversized vehicle is required by the member or dependents for medical reasons, and approval is obtained through the Secretarial Process, vehicles shipped at government expense to, from, and between overseas locations are limited to 20 measurement tons.

Applicant incurred excess cost charges by shipping a vehicle measuring 23.25 measurement tons.  He is liable for the excess transportation charges.  Additionally, applicant’s spouse was advised of the excess charges at the time the vehicle was turned in for shipment.

A complete copy of the 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 14 May 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, are sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale expressed by the Joint Personal Property Shipping Office.  The applicant asserts that he was misinformed by JPPSO port employees.  However, other than his own assertions, he has provided no evidence substantiating his claims.  Additionally, the applicant’s spouse was advised there would be excess shipping charges at the time the vehicle in question was turned in for shipment.  We therefore agree with the opinion and recommendation provided by JPPSO and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00760 in Executive Session on 8 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Feb 04, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, JPPSO/ECAF, dated 3 May 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 May 04.