RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00115
		INDEX CODE:  108.07
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

	Mandatory Case Completion Date:  11 Jul 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes some shipping irregularities occurred during his HHG shipment that resulted in improper assessment of his shipping weight.  He made a permanent change-of-station (PCS) move from the Pentagon to McChord AFB, WA in August 1999.  His shipment net weight was 16,038 lbs.  As he prepared for retirement he moved the majority of his HHGs from Montgomery, AL to Burke, VA.  That net weight was 16,511 lbs.  He later moved additional furniture with a total net weight of 978 lbs for a total move weight of 17,489 lbs.  There was no large furniture purchases to make his move weight different from the VA to WA or AL to VA moves.  He contends that his shipment could not have grown to the alleged net weight of 19,890 lbs and then shrink again.  He has never had overweight shipments in any previous PCS move.  

When the moving van showed up at the WA residence there was already a shipment on the truck that took up a quarter of the truck.  Applicant believes the trucker put down the gross weight of the entire combined shipment on the Government Bill of Lading (GBL) rather than the separate shipment weights.  By his estimate, a quarter of a truck would weigh 3,000 to 7,000 lbs, based on his previous moves.  JPPSO states all the weight documentation is in order, however they were unable to provide information regarding the other shipment on the truck.  The moving company was unable/unwilling to produce the paperwork as well.  It is a common practice for the receiving base to reweigh a shipment for verification if overweight.  This did not occur in his case.  While not required, such a customary reweigh would have likely clarified the problem.  

In addition, applicant states the delivery of his HHGs occurred in August 2002, but he was not notified of the problem until November 2003.  In a case where there is likely to be a dispute, this is an inappropriate level of service.  He was told by DFAS that the debt would be taken out over a several month period.  Instead, because of his impending retirement, a lump sum of $2,278.41 was taken out of his final pay causing a significant financial hardship during his transition to civilian life.  

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement and documentation associated with his PCS move and establishment of his debt.  His complete submission, with attachments is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, on 1 Jun 83.  He was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on that same date.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Oct 99.  He voluntarily retired for years of service, on 31 Jul 04.

Applicant made a PCS move from McChord AFB, WA to Maxwell AFB, AL per S.O. AA-653 dated 1 Jul 02.  The shipment moved under that PCS had a net weight of 22,100 lbs.  He was billed $2,278.41 for exceeding the maximum weight allowance of 17,500 lbs.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

JPPSO-SAT/ECAF recommends denial.  JPPSO states The Comptroller General of the United States has clearly stated that the weight of a previous shipment cannot be used to substitute for the weight of a subsequent shipment.  Weights are supported by certified weight tickets and the member is responsible for all weight shipped in excess of the authorized weight allowance.  While the applicant makes inference to fraud, he does not provide any evidence to support it.  The Comptroller General has held that the burden of establishing fraud rests upon the party alleging it, and 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 just a suspicion or conjecture.  

When it is not practical to weigh a shipment the industry accepted practice is applying 40 lbs per inventory line item to obtain a constructive shipment weight.  His shipment contained 567 inventory line items, times 40, would produce a constructive shipment weight of 22,680 lbs, which tends to support the official scale weight of 22,100 lbs.  Additional shipments on the moving van are common practice in the moving industry.  Weights are obtained before and after each loading/offloading, and any property on the vehicle becomes part of the tare weight.  Thus, the net weight of the applicant's property was not affected.  Failure to perform a reweigh does not invalidate weight certificates already obtained for a shipment.  While reweighs are authorized under certain circumstances, these directives are procedural in nature and do not provide additional entitlements nor confer benefits not specifically authorized by law.  In this case, when the weight of the property is established by weight certificates and no substantial evidence is presented to indicate that such certificates are in error, the charge for excess weight must be sustained.  The JPPSO 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 11 Feb 05 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting corrective action.  Subsequent to his HHG move performed in conjunction with his retirement from the Air Force, it was determined he exceeded his maximum weight allowance by 2,536 lbs and was billed $2,278.41.  He contends, among other things, that shipping irregularities occurred during his move that led to improper assessment of his shipping weight.  After a thorough review of the evidence presented, it is our opinion that the excessive amount of time taken to notify the applicant he had exceeded his weight limitations coupled with the unwillingness and inability to provide him with the documentation he requested in order to support is appeal, inhibited his efforts to adequately dispute the indebtedness.  The comments of JPPSO are duly noted; however, we believe the applicant has established that reasonable doubt exists with the accuracy of his household shipment weights, and any doubt in this matter should be resolved in his favor.  Accordingly, we recommend his records be corrected as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Government Bill of Lading JP-370690, dated 8 July 2002, was amended to show he was authorized shipment of a total of 2,655 pounds of professional books, papers and equipment (PBP&E).

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-00115 in Executive Session on 6 Apr 05, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
        Member

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jan 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, JPPSO-SAT/ECAF, dated 1 Feb 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Feb 05.

					
								Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2005-00115