RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02466
		INDEX NUMBER:  128.10
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The debt he has accumulated for overweight shipment and nontemporary storage of household goods (HHGs) be cancelled and his nontemporary goods be sent to him at his new address.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he retired at Fairchild Air Force Base in Washington in 1991, he was told he could make a shipment to his new location in Illinois and also put household goods in nontemporary storage, which he did.  In Oct 03, he requested his HHGs be shipped to him from nontemporary storage.  At this time, he found out there was a problem such as the following:

	  a.  His HHGs in nontemporary storage exceeded his allowable weight limit.

	  b.  He should never have been allowed to place HHGs in nontemporary storage.

	  c.  His file was sent to the Excess Cost Adjudication Function (ECAF) and he has never received a reply.

	  d.  He was advised by an official from the traffic management office (TMO) he was in arrears on the storage of his HHGs and needed to send a payment of $69.12 per month.  He sent a money order for $200.00 and stated to them the payments would be taken out of his retirement pay and to advise him if they did not receive payment.

	  e.  He was never contacted his payments were not being received and assumed they were.

	  f.  According to the TMO official, the Air Force paid his fees quarterly from 31 May 95 to Dec 97.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant retired from the Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6) effective 1 Sep 91 with 21 years, 1 month, and 15 days of active service.  As a TSgt, the applicant was authorized shipment of 11,000 pounds of HHGs.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

JPPSO/ECAF recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  In accordance with paragraph U5365, JFTR, members who retire from active duty are entitled to store and ship HHGs to a home of selection (HOS).  The HHGs must be turned over for transportation within one year following termination of active duty.  Entitlement to nontemporary storage also terminates one year following termination of active duty.  In accordance with paragraph   U5365-F, JFTR, an extension of the one year limit may be requested based on an unexpected event, outside the member’s control, which prevents them from moving their HHGs to the home of selection within the one year limit.  The applicant was granted several extensions of the time limit to move his HHGs.  The final extension extended the time limit to 31 Aug 97.  However, the extensions did not extend the Government’s obligation for payment of storage costs.

In May 95, the applicant shipped a total of 9,320 pounds to his HOS.  He also placed 5,120 pounds of goods in storage.  Since he was authorized a total of 11,000 pounds for his grade he did not incur any overweight charges on the shipment of the HHGs to his HOS.  However, since his entitlement to storage costs expired on 31 Aug 92, he is financially responsible for all charges related to the storage of his HHGs.  The applicant states he should not have to pay for the overweight charges of 3,440 pounds (9,320+5,120-11,000).

Applicant’s HHGs have been in storage since May 95.  The Government paid the fees from May 95 through Dec 97.  Since his entitlement ended in Aug 92, he owes the Government for these payments.  The commercial storage company was advised in Jan 98 to bill the applicant directly for his storage costs.  The company advises the applicant failed to completely pay the fees.  The applicant’s assertion he thought the storage fees were being taken out of his retirement pay each month is without merit.  There are no procedures for a transportation officer to receive money owed to a commercial entity.

The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 24 Sep 04 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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 primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice warranting the relief requested.  It is clear the Air Force erred in placing the applicant’s household goods in nontemporary storage after his one-year entitlement.  However, the Air Force paid the fees associated with this error for over two years.  Subsequently, the applicant was placed on notice the responsibility for payment of storage fees on his household goods was his.  Yet, he failed to take the necessary measures to resolve the problem, i.e., removing the goods from storage or making the required payments.  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 Docket Number BC-2004-02466 in Executive Session on 2 November 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, JPPSO/ECAF, dated 20 Sep 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Sep 04.