RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01643
							
    XXXXXXX			COUNSEL:  NONE

    XXXXXXX				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His indebtedness to the government as a result of the excess weight of his household goods (HHG) shipment be eliminated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The current debt against him for this move should be removed. On the DD Form 619-1, there is no documentation about ever being overweight prior to getting to XXXXXXX, Wyoming.  As he had stated in a previous appeal, he would have jumped on the chance to move items himself for a cost much less than the contractors move.  The only time there was a reweigh was here in XXXXXXX, WY after the fact. Referring to his letter to Congressman XXXX, $1600.60 is a lot of money for him, however, in almost 17 years, this is the first time he had ever been charged on a required military move.  Again, if he had known prior to leaving that it was overweight, he would have taken the weight on a rented trailer. If all his appeal and rebuttal letters could be read, that will help in the case he is trying to make.  

In support of his request applicant provided DD Form 619-1, Standard Form 1203, Appeal-Indebtedness Letter, Notification of Indebtedness, Excess Cost Rebuttal Adjudication, Permanent Change of Station Orders (PCS), and Correspondence from Senator XXXX of Nevada.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant.

Per Special Order AA-713, dated 8 August 2001, the applicant made a PCS move from McChord AFB WA to Warren AFB WY.  He made a shipment of Household Goods (HHG) in conjunction with his assignment.  The move was under Government Bill of Lading (GBL) JP-.  The original net weight of the shipment was 12,660 pounds.  A reweigh at destination produced a lower net weight of 12,640.  The applicant was billed $1,600.60 for exceeding the authorized weight allowance of 9,000 pounds.

______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ECAF recommends denial and states the applicant did not provide any evidence to support a probable error or an injustice.  He was authorized to ship a maximum of 9,000 pounds of HHG at government expense.  His shipment had a new weight of 12,640 pounds.  He did not state he was unaware of the authorized weight allowance. In accordance with paragraph U5340-A JFTR, the member is financially responsible for all transportation costs arising from the transportation of HHG in excess of the authorized allowance.

As prescribed in paragraph U5310-B, JFTR, members in the grade of E-5 (the grade the applicant held on the effective date of his orders) with dependents are authorized to ship a maximum of 9,000 pounds of HHG at Government expense. The applicant incurred excess cost charges by effecting a shipment of HHG with a net weight of 12,640 pounds; he received the benefit of lower reweigh at destination.  

The applicant’s statement that there was no indication of his shipment being overweight at the time of the move is without merit.  Carriers are required to provide the origin traffic management office (TMO) with certified weight tickets at the time of pickup of the shipment.  This information is available to the member at both the origin and destination TMOs.  The nature of a shipment of HHG is such that charges are established at the time services are performed.  Once a shipment of HHG is packed, inventoried, loaded on the van, and drayed to the scales, the member has incurred excess cost charges at that point for any weight in excess of the authorized weight allowance.

ECAF 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 25 June 2004 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief of his indebtedness to the government is warranted.  His contentions are duly noted; however, the indebtedness he incurred is a result of him exceeding his maximum allowed weight allowance of 9,000 pounds. We note that carriers are required to provide TMO with certified weight tickets at the time of pickup of the shipment and this information is available to the member at both the origin and destination TMOs. Therefore, 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.  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 BC-2004-01643 in Executive Session on 14 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 May 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ECAF, dated 16 Jun 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 25 Jun 04.
    .