RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02111
							INDEX CODE:  128.02
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL:  NONE

  XXXXXXXXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reimbursed in the amount of $948 for the shipment of his privately owned vehicle (POV) in conjunction with his retirement from Honolulu, Hawaii to, CA.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Under his retirement orders, he and his wife departed Honolulu, HI, on 26 March 2004.  They owned two POVs and intended to ship them both from Hawaii.  At their own expense, they shipped one vehicle on 9 March 2004.  The early shipment ensured they had a vehicle waiting for them at the port in so they could drive to their destination in Utah.  He arranged to ship his second vehicle through the Travel Management Office (TMO) at XXXXXX AFB, HI, at government expense on or about 26 March 2004.  The delayed shipment allowed them to avoid the expense of a rental car for their transportation before departing Honolulu.  However, they accepted an offer to sell their second vehicle a few days prior to their departure. 

He did not ship a vehicle at government expense using his orders, as was his entitlement.  He used the same company to ship his POV that the government uses to transport motor vehicles from Honolulu to; however, he paid less than the government contract would have cost.  He believes the government should reimburse him for the shipment of the first vehicle since he did not ship the second vehicle. 

In support of his application, the applicant submits a copy of his retirement order, his spouse’s travel order, and a copy of the Bill of Lading for shipment of his privately owned vehicle from Honolulu, HI, to, CA.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the applicant’s retirement order, he was released from active duty on 29 February 2004 and retired effective 1 March 2004 in the grade of lieutenant colonel.  He served 23 years, 8 months, and 10 days on active duty.  

Per Special Orders AC-002996, dated 23 December 2003 and AR-094, dated 3 February 2004, the applicant moved from Waipahu, HI, to Highland, UT, in conjunction with his retirement.  He elected to pay $948 to ship his POV from Honolulu, HI, to, CA, at personal expense.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

JPPSO-SAT/ECAF recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  It is ECAF’s opinion that the applicant does not meet the burden of establishing he is the victim of an error or injustice caused by either a representative of the government or a government entity.  ECAF states that the applicant, at his own discretion, elected to ship his vehicle at personal expense because he wanted to reserve the entitlement to ship a second vehicle at a later date.  He made the appropriate arrangements to ship the vehicle through the Traffic Management Office at government expense; however, prior to the shipment date, he sold the vehicle and cancelled the shipment.  Members are not reimbursed for entitlements they elect not to use.  The JPPSO-SAT/ECAF advisory is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s spouse responded through their congressional member that the Air Force’s recommendation to deny their appeal makes no sense because to reimburse them would cost the government less than had they paid for the authorized shipment of their vehicle.  They feel their claim is a fair and reasonable request.  The applicant’s rebuttal is at 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 probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of record, the Board is not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant has provided no evidence that would lead us to believe that he was not given the opportunity to ship a POV at government expense in connection with his retirement; or, that the TMO counselor provided misleading or inaccurate information regarding his entitlement.  In this regard, 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.  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 this application in Executive Session on 16 November 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02111:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jun 04, with attachments.
	Exhibit B.  Letter, JPPSO-SAT/ECAF, dated 31 Aug 04. 
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Sep 04.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, Senator XXXXX, dtd 8 Oct 04, w/atch.