RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02714
		
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive full reimbursement of $1,935.72 for expenses he incurred as a result of his Personally Procured Move (PPM).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has exhausted all resources available for resolution of this particular dilemma and was recommended to the Board for assistance in resolving a major discrepancy in the computation of his permanent change of station (PCS) household goods weight entitlement.  Presently, he is being told he will not be reimbursed for Personally Procured Move (PPM) expenses incurred during their PCS from Minot AFB to F.E. Warren AFB.  The Government Bill of Lading (GBL) weight for moving his household goods exceeded the maximum allowable weight authorized by the Joint Federal Transportation Regulation (JFTR) allowance of 14,500 pounds

There appears to be a gross weight miscalculation on the weight charged by the contract carrier.  With the error of JPPSO failing to weigh his shipment, there is no way to determine the correct weight of his household goods shipment.  In addition, since no reweigh was performed, there is no way to determine if in fact the weight obtain at the origin was correct, was it weighed with another members property or possible at the extreme, fraudulent.  Given that it is unfeasible to repack, reweigh and unpack our household goods to prove the miscalculation, he is hoping the Board positively reviews his request and is able to correct this discrepancy so that his family may be compensated appropriately for the PPM portion of the PCS move.

In addition, the weight was based on preliminary estimates given by three separate members of the contract carrier.  There was no opportunity for re-weigh because the error was discovered after delivery.  There was incongruity between the amounts the member personally moved versus what the carrier moved. There was no comparison of prior permanent change of station (PCS) move weights as to current weight. 

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal letter, documentation associated with his move, copies of DD Form 619/1, Statement of Accessorial Services Performed, and a DITY cost estimate report. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

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

Per Special Order AF-0615, dated 3 May 2004, the applicant made a PCS move from Minot AFB ND to FE Warren AFB WY.  He made a shipment of Household Goods (HHG) in conjunction with his assignment.  A shipment of HHG with a net weight of 17,480 pounds moved under Government Bill of Lading (GBL) ZY-735462.  He also made application for a personally procured move (PPM) of HHG.  He estimated the weight of the PPM to be 1,000 pounds.  Since the applicant exceeded his authorized weight allowance on the GBL shipment, he is not authorized an incentive payment for PPM shipment.

As prescribed in the JFTR, para U5310-B, the maximum authorized weight allowance for members in the grade of 0-3, with dependents, is 14,500 pounds.  At Government expense, the applicant made a shipment of HHG with a net weight of 17,480 pounds.  The shipment contained 355 pounds of professional books, papers, and equipment (PBP&E).  Considering the reduction of PBP&E and the authorizing packing allowance, the shipment had a net chargeable weight of 15,412 pounds.  Thus, the Government has met its full obligation in moving the applicant’s maximum authorized weight entitlements.  Therefore, there is no authority to pay him for a personally procured move.  When a member makes more than one type of shipment, Government arranged and personally procured, the incentive is based on the authorized weight remaining after subtracting the GBL shipment weight from the member’s authorized weight allowance.  In this case, as the applicant exceeded the weight authorization on the GBL shipment, there is no remaining weight to subtract. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ECAF recommended denial.   The applicant states he believes the weight tickets are in error.  However, he did not provide any evidence to support the allegation of fraud. In decision B-200642, 18 May 1982, the CG held that the burden of establishing fraud rests upon the party alleging it, and that the fraud must be proven by evidence sufficient to overcome the existing presumption of honesty and fair dealing. Circumstantial evidence is competent only if it affords a clear inference of fraud and amounts to more than a suspicion or conjecture. If, however, the circumstances are as consistent with honesty and fair dealing as with dishonesty, the inference of honesty is required to be drawn.

At the applicant’s request, the Government contracted with the carrier to move his HHG.  As the service was accomplished in accordance with the contract, the Government is obligated to pay the carrier based on the certified weight tickets.  Any estimates made prior to packing and loading his shipment on the vehicle is just that, an estimate, and cannot be used to refute the official recorded weight.  

ECAF complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated it appears fraud has occurred.  He did not now, nor has he ever owned a quantity of household goods that can support the alleged weight reflected on the provided weight tickets. Additionally, a reweigh of his household goods was never provided, as is standard policy, nor was the possibility of another individual’s household goods on the truck prior to his move addressed adequately.  It appears by all evidence provided the carrier failed to adjust for the weight accordingly to satisfy the dual shipment.  He understands that he is not the first person to ever have issues with a military move in their careers but he is now feeling the emotional and financial pain of not paying enough attention to the process as it was unfolding to take immediate action for reconciliation.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  In this respect, we note that the applicant did not provide any evidence to support the allegation of fraud, nor did he use his option to reweigh at the time of delivery.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 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 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-2004-02714 in Executive Session on 4 January 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Jul 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ECAF, dated 6 Oct 04.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 04.
    Exhibit D.  Applicant’s response, 8 Nov 04, w/atchs.