RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01423 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be compensated for his Personally Procured Move (PPM) as briefed to him by Hickam Transportation Management Office (TMO). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The TMO office 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 done 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 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 in the Regular Air Force serving in the grade of master sergeant. On 2 April 2010, pursuant to Permanent Change of Station orders, from Hickam AFB, HI to Eglin AFB FL, the applicant was counseled on PPMs. The applicant was quoted $17,706.70 as the “Estimated Gross Incentive” to personally procure his move. Based on that amount, the applicant was given an advance payment of $10,624.02. On 6 August 2010, the Eglin TMO computed the applicant’s actual cost as 9,584.38. Since the applicant received an advance, he owed the government, $1,582.68. The applicant applied for a remittance of debt, which the Air Force approved. Effective 1 April 2010, change 283 to the JFTR requires that Government Constructed Costs (GCC) used to determine the incentive payments in PPM be based on “best value” versus the “low cost” charges. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: PPA HQ/ECAF recommends denial. ECAF states the JFTR requires the member’s incentive be based on 95 percent of the GCC, and at the time of the applicant’s shipment, the GCC was based on “best value” rates. The applicant’s total moving expenses totaled $10,624.02. 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 in the amount of $1,582.68. The complete ECAF evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded by stating that he did not receive the briefing regarding the change in the JFTR until 25 Jun 10, two full months after the change. The following key points are made in his rebuttal: a. After being briefed, he asked if he could cancel his PPM. The TMO agreed to allow him to cancel the PPM. He immediately contacted the contract company and explained his situation; the company also agreed it was unfair to make him continue with the shipment. However, the company told him that if his container was not already on the ship they would cancel the shipment. Unfortunately, for him, the container was in the middle of the ship and could not be easily accessed. He then went back to the TMO office and told them he had to continue with the PPM. b. He went to the base legal office for counseling. The legal office agreed that the situation was wrong, but from a legal standpoint, there was nothing that could be done. On 26 Jun 10, he contacted his Congressional representatives for assistance; however, they too agreed that this was wrong and never should have happened; but, there was nothing they could do. c. He applied for a debt remission and was approved; however, the Defense Accounting and Finance Service (DFAS) have already started collecting the debt. He is working with DFAS to resolve this issue. _________________________________________________________________ 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 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 Personally Procured Move, 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/ECAF 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-01423 in Executive Session on 9 Feb 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2011- 01423 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Apr 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. PPA HQ/ECAF, Letter, dated 1 Aug 11. Exhibit C. SAF/MRBR, Letter, dated 19 Aug 2011. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, undated.