RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-02897

	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect his household goods (HHG) shipment related to his move from Japan to Florida and non-temporary storage (NTS) in Virginia was not overweight.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The weight provided by the moving company at the time of pickup from his residence was less than the weight provided when the shipment was released from storage.  This is impossible because HHGs do not gain weight over a three year period in storage.  Additionally, there were five lot numbers missing from his delivery.  The moving company acknowledged the items were missing by paying for the missing items.  Therefore, he should be relieved of any responsibility relating to overweight household goods.    The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a retired Air Force master sergeant.  

According to the Form 1190-S, Rev. 5/99 provided by the applicant, on 28 Dec 12, his items were picked up and placed into NTS and on 8 Mar 16, they were delivered out of NTS.

In an email communique dated 17 May 18, PPA HQ/PPOA indicated the applicant has not been billed for exceeding his authorized weight entitlement pending the Board decision.  The pending bill amount is $1,951.35 (Exhibit F).

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

PPA HQ/PPE recommends denying the application indicating the Comptroller General (CG) has ruled in similar cases that the linehaul shipment weight, and not the weight obtained upon entrance into NTS, is to be used when calculating excess cost for shipments linehauled from NTS to another destination.  The Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), paragraph 5200-B lists the prescribed weight allowance for the applicant with dependents as 13,000 pounds.  The total weight of all shipments exceeded the applicant’s prescribed weight allowance as reflected in the JTR.  

On 28 Dec 12, a total of 6,900 pounds net weight was packed and placed into NTS.  On 2 Mar 16, the property was released from NTS and the weight for that shipment was 6,940 pounds net weight.  The applicant had additional shipments weighing 2,440 pounds net weight, 6,640 pounds net weight, and 2,320 pounds (the applicant moved this shipment himself and was reimbursed).  The total weight of all shipments combined was 18,340 pounds net weight, exceeding the authorized weight allowance of 13,000 pounds.

A higher weight, when taken out of storage, may be due to several factors, including the use of different scales, the use of storage materials, which are not removed before shipping, and moisture absorption while in storage.  Further, the probability that there was an error in the weight certificate for the goods when delivered to storage is equal to the probability that an error occurred in the weight of the goods when shipped.  The weight obtained when the property was placed in storage must be used for all costs relating to the storage, and the weight obtained when the property was shipped from storage must be used for all costs relating to shipment.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 13 Dec 16 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 28 Dec 16.  In his response, the applicant contends that there were five missing lot items from his delivery shipment, which were extremely heavy.  He states that he understands the missing items do account for the full 3,845 pounds that he was overweight on his shipment to Hurlburt Field, FL.  He paid the funds back for his DITY move, in the amount of $1,702.14, which accounts for 2,320 pounds.  He ask the Board to take into consideration the amount of time he invested in attempting to correct the situation with both the TMO office, the carriers, as well as the storage facility.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error and injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of HQ PPA/PPE and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2016-02897 in Executive Session on 25 Jul 18:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 13 Jul 16.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, PPA HQ/PPE, dated 6 Dec 16.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, AFBCMR to applicant, dated 13 Dec 16.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s response, dated 28 Dec 16.
Exhibit F:	Email, HQ/PPOA, dated 17 May 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.