MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  29 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036916

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Paul A. Petty		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. John M. Slone		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Relief of a debt to the government for charges for exceeding the weight allowance for Household Goods (HHG) during a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) move in June 1997.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she, an active military member, was led to believe that her recently retired military husband’s unused retirement authorization for HHG shipment could be applied to cover the excess HHG weight their family experienced in a PCS move from Belgium to Washington, D.C., in June 1997.  However, she is being charged $4,945 for 1,480 pounds excess HHG weight over her authorized HHG weight allowance of 17,500 pounds.  Her husband’s unused HHG weight allowance has not been applied to cover the excess weight.  She provides a letter from her husband to the Board wherein he concurs with her request to use his unused retirement HHG shipment allocation to cover the excess weight.  She states she has applied for relief of this debt on two previous occasions but has not received an answer.

She presents extenuating circumstances that her assignments branch (Army Nurse Corps) at the Department of the Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) recommended that she extend her assignment overseas for one year to 1997 so that they could place her in a colonel’s position pending her selection by the 1996 colonel promotion board.  She did extend for one more year based on PERSCOM’s advice, was selected for colonel and placed in a colonel’s position as PERSCOM had indicated would happen.  However, in doing this, she and her husband unwittingly exceeded her husband’s HHG movement authorization.  Under the circumstances and based on discussion with JAG and transportation officials who agreed, she feels that it is a reasonable request to extend her husband’s HHG movement authorization to cover their additional HHG shipment cost.

She states that, “with a junior in high school planning on college and the very high expense of living in the Washington, D.C. area, and the very high Washington Metropolitan child care expenses (for her younger children), it would cause an unbearable financial burden to our family (to pay the $4,945).”  She also states that she does not feel that she is, “asking for more than my husband is entitled for his retirement and could be considered a savings to the government had he moved his full household belongs and our family as his retirement entitlement.”

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records show:

That she, a COL in the active Army, and her husband, a LTC who retired from the Army on 31 March 1991, and their family of four children moved in June 1997 

from SHAPE, Belgium, to her new assignment in Washington, D.C..  She was authorized 17,500 pounds for shipment of HHG.  Upon arrival in Washington, their weight of HHG moved was found to be 18,980 pounds, 1,480 pounds over her authorized HHG weight limit.  She was charged by the government for the movement of this excess HHG weight in the amount of $4,945.

The applicant’s LTC husband, upon retirement, was also authorized a shipment of 17,500 pounds of HHG, for 1 year from the date of his retirement.  Under the provisions of the Joint Federal Travel Regulation, paragraph U536-F, the one year time limit for the transportation of HHG may be extended, upon request by the retired soldier, up to 6 years from the date of retirement; in this case, to 31 March 1997.

The Headquarters, Department of the Army, Chief of Transportation Policy Division, rendered an opinion that the applicant’s husband’s entitlement for the shipment of HHG as a benefit of retirement had expired on 31 March 1997 and could not be used to cover the excess weight.  He stated that the applicant was justly and correctly responsible for paying the HHG excess weight movement expense.

The applicant rebutted the above opinion stating that she had circumstances beyond her control.  On the strong recommendation of PERSCOM, she had extended her tour overseas for one year to facilitate proper reassignment if she was selected for promotion to colonel.  She was selected for promotion to colonel and so assigned as PERSCOM expected.  She did this in cooperation with PERSCOM as a benefit to the Army and herself.  She did not realize that they would need to use her husband’s HHG moving entitlement.  Had she known that they would loose the entitlement when they needed it as a result of extending, this fact might have influenced her decision to extend.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant PCSd in June 1997, 3 months after her husband’s HHG shipment authorization expired on 31 March 1997.  There is no provision of regulation or policy to extend the 6 year authorization limit for movement of HHG for retiring soldiers except for hospitalization.  As such, the applicant’s husband’s HHG shipment authorization is not applicable to the HHG excess weight.
2.  The Board does not find the circumstances of the applicant’s tour extension sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief from the debt.  The debt of $4,945 is a just debt for the movement of 1,495 pounds of excess HHG weight from Belgium to Washington, D.C..

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JL___  ___MM___  __JS___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036916	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000629	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.128.1	Cancellation/Remission of a Debt	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.