RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02715 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be compensated for his Personally Procured Move (PPM), as briefed to him by Hickam Traffic Management Office (TMO). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The TMO incorrectly used “low cost” rates to counsel him on his PPM application, rather than the newly implemented “Best Value” rates. As such, the counselor incorrectly estimated the amount of compensation he would receive for a “Do-it-Yourself” (DITY) move. He would not have agreed to a DITY move had he known the correct rate provided no incentive and resulted in extra costs. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal letter, a letter from the Commander, and other forms associated with his move. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of senior master sergeant. On 6 May 10, pursuant to a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) move from Hickam AFB, HI to Beale AFB, CA, the applicant was counseled on PPMs. The applicant completed a DD Form 2278, Application for Do-It-Yourself Move and Counseling Checklist, and was quoted an estimated incentive payment of $17,689.20 to personally procure his move. Based on that amount, the applicant was given an advance payment of $10,613.52. The applicant personally arranged to have his household goods (HHG) transported at a cost of $4,907.72. Under the Defense Personal Property System (DPS), the total incentive payment authorized was $10,263.61. Since the applicant received an advanced allowance of $10,613.52, he owed the government $1,688.88. The applicant applied for a remission of the debt, which was approved. Effective 1 Apr 10, change 283, to the Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) requires that Government Constructed Cost (GCC) used to determine the incentive payments in PPM be based on “best value” versus the “low cost” charges. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: PPA HQ/DD recommends denial. DD states the JFTR requires that a member’s incentive be based upon 95 percent of the GCC, and at the time of the applicant’s shipment, the GCC was based upon the “best value” rates reflected in DPS. The applicant’s incentive payment under the DPS system after taxes was $8,924.64. His total payment to the contractor was $4,907.72. Although he did not receive as much incentive as he was initially advised, he did not lose any money on the PPM. The applicant applied for and was approved for a remission of the debt established for the excess advance payment he received. The complete ECAF evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 15 Jul 11, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ 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 an injustice warranting the relief sought in this application. Although it does appear the applicant was miscounseled regarding the amount of reimbursement he could expect to receive for a PPM, he was fully compensated for his move and in reality received a de facto incentive through remission of the debt he incurred for the excess advance he initially received. We believe this constitutes proper and fitting relief. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of PPA HQ/DD and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice warranting further action by this Board. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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-2010-02715 in Executive Session on 16 Nov 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jul 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, PPA HQ/DD, dated 29 Jun 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jul 11.