RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04391

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive reimbursement for a personally procured move (PPM) of his Household Goods (HHG) at the Government Constructive Cost (GCC) rate of $3,885.88 per 1,000 pounds (95 percent incentive for PPM) and he be paid the difference between $8,090.75 and $2,750.86.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was advised by the local Traffic Management Office (TMO) at Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB), California (CA) that he would be reimbursed at the GCC rate of $3,885.88 per 1,000 pounds for a PPM.  He based his decision to conduct the PPM on that quoted rate.  

He incurred $2,711.02 in direct expenses but was paid in the amount of $2,171.10, representing a personal loss of $539.92.  

He would not have conducted a PPM had he been briefed on the lower rate.  The TMO admitted to the error but lacks the authority to correct it.  The government should honor the original rate quoted.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 8 Feb 90 and On 1 Sep 13, he retired from active duty. 

According to the applicant’s DD Form 2278, Application for Do It Yourself (DITY) Move and Counseling Checklist, dated 24 Apr 13, he personally arranged for transportation of his HHG from Vandenberg AFB, CA to Melbourne, Florida.   The form reflects his estimated gross incentive for his HHG was $3,885.88. 

The applicant’s PPM Checklist and Certification of Expenses, dated 21 Aug 13, reflects the following:

Rental Vehicle Expense:  	$613.00
Gas, tolls and weighing Fees:	$1,189.81
Moving Equipment:			$402.68
Oil Change:				$505.53

Total Expenses Claimed:		$2,711.02

The applicant’s DD Form 135102, Travel Voucher or Subvoucher, signed by the applicant, dated 21 Aug 13, Block 18, Reimbursable Expenses, reflects his PPM expense as $2,711.02.

The applicant’s DD Form 2278, dated 18 Sep 13, reflects the applicant’s estimated gross incentive for his HHG as $1,321.20.  
 
The applicant’s Travel voucher Summary dated 24 Oct 13 reflects the following:

DITY Entitlements: 			$2,750.86
FITW:					$579.76
Amount Paid to applicant:	$2,171.10

The comments section of the Travel Voucher Summary dated 24 Oct 13, states in part that:  Expenses are $431.81.  “Oil change not authorized.  Oil only.”  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

PPA/PPE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  

The Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) requires the GCC and member's incentive be based upon the best value rates (rates are reflected in the Defense Personal Property System (DPS)) for the actual weight at the time the shipment is made.  Further, the travel voucher summary indicates the applicant was paid $2,171.10 (incentive payment less federal taxes withheld); however, his authorized expenses (based on authorized receipts) were only $431.81.  Therefore the applicant did not lose any money on the PPM.

Costs obtained at the time of counseling are estimated costs, based on estimated weights, and should be used for planning purposes only.  They cannot be used to substitute for the actual costs that would have been expended had government procured transportation been used.  The only provision for the Government to reimburse a member more than what it would have cost for a government procured transportation for the same property, is if Government procured transportation was not available.  Also, the applicant states he incurred $2,711.02 in direct expenses, representing a personal loss of $539.92.  However, the travel voucher summary indicates expenses for the PPM was only $431.81.

According to the JTR, paragraph 5210-D.5.b, a member who personally arranges for transportation of HHG is authorized monetary allowance equal to 95 percent of the GCC for the actual HHG weight transported, up to their maximum HHG weight allowance.  

According to AFI 24-501, Personal Property Moving and Storage, paragraph 12.4.2, counselors are to advise members that the estimated monetary allowance is based on estimated weight provided by the member and the best value shipment methodology.  DD Form 2278, block 9.a.(1),(3), completed at the time of counseling, reflects the Estimated Constructive Cost and Estimated Gross Incentive.  Block 11.a.(1), completed only after weights have been obtained and the move completed, reflects the Actual Constructive Cost and Actual Gross Incentive to be applied.

A complete copy of the PPA/PPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant argues that it is reasonable to expect a slight change in the GCC quoted in April; however, the magnitude of the difference he was quoted equates to more than a 70% discount from the rate he was quoted during counseling.  He was quoted a rate of $3,885.88 per 1,000 pounds but was actually paid an incentive rate of only $1,136.72 per 1,000 pounds.  No reasonable person acting in good faith would anticipate such a large variance.

He used the information provided in counseling session to determine whether it was worthwhile for him to perform the PPM, but no one can make an informed judgment when incentives can vary by as much as 70 percent.

The PPM counselor admitted that he erroneously used superseded data to populate the DP3 Cost Generating Tool and this justifies why his case should be handled differently.  Additionally, while the Air Force OPR suggests that he did not lose any money because his authorized expenses totaled only $431.81, this amount does not reflect his true costs.  The receipts he submitted totaled $2,712.81 and they were validated by the TMO personnel.  When considering the taxes withheld and incurred costs, he lost a total of $541.71 ($2,712.81 - 2,171.10) versus $431.81.

The salient point is that he performed a PPM based on a grossly inaccurate incentive estimate.  He acted in good faith and as a result incurred losses due to no fault of his own and request the government honor the original estimate.

In further support of his request, the applicant provides copies of a PPM cost spreadsheet, email communications with TMO personnel, and excerpts from his voucher submission.

A complete copy of the applicant’s 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 to warrant reimbursement of his PPM at the GCC rate of $3,885.88.  We note the applicant contends he would not have conducted a PPM had he been briefed on the lower rate and requests to be paid at the higher rate.  However, we do not find the evidence in this case sufficient to grant the requested relief.  It is easy to understand how the applicant would expect to receive more than he did for his PPM.  However, as noted by the OPR, the JTR requires that the GCC and applicant’s incentive be based upon the best value rates for the actual weight at the time the shipment is made.  As such, we believe the applicant was fully compensated for his PPM in accordance with (IAW) the JTR.  The applicant also contends his expenses were 2,711.02 and provides a copy of DD Form 1351-2, dated 21 Aug 13, that appears to substantiate his assertion.  However, it is not clear how his expenses were calculated.  Nonetheless, the final travel voucher summary dated 24 Oct 13, indicates the oil change he claimed in the amount of $505.53 was not an authorized expense, so it appears his claim was approved in the amount of $2,171.10 instead of $2,711.02.  In view of the foregoing, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to support the applicant’s contention that he suffered a personal loss of $539.92.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error of injustice. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence the applicant was denied rights to which entitled, we find no basis to recommend granting any of the relief sought in this application.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2015-04391 in Executive Session on 13 Dec 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				    , Panel Chair
				    , Member
				    , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Oct 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, PPA/PPE, dated 3 Aug 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Aug 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Sep 16, w/atchs.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-04391.