PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           9 July 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001066184

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

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that she be relieved of a debt of $308.38 incurred for the purchase of full replacement protection for her household goods (HHG).

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that she retired from active duty.  When she shipped her HHG to her retirement address, she purchased full replacement protection for her possessions.  Although she made a claim and was paid for damage to her HHG shipment, she received a depreciated payment and did not receive full replacement value.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that she is a retired Sergeant First Class (SFC/E-7).  She was released from active duty at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, on 31 October 1995.  On 18 June 1999, her HHGs were picked up by the mover and delivered to her retirement location in Buffalo, New York, 18 November 1999.  Incident to this move, the applicant purchased full replacement protection for her HHG at a cost of $420.75.  Since the Government rate for this service was only $112.37, her cost was $308.38.

5.  When the applicant’s HHGs arrived in Buffalo, there was $749.70 worth of damages.  She promptly filed a claim with the mover, but they referred her to the nearest military claims office at Fort Drum, New York.  Unaware that she had filed a claim with the mover, the Fort Drum Claims Office sent the applicant a depreciated payment of $414.00.  Because the difference between the actual loss and the depreciated payment was approximately the same as her full replacement protection cost, she accepted the payment.

6.  On 29 June 2001, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Indianapolis Center (DFAS-IN) notified the applicant that she was indebted in the amount of $308.38 -- her portion of the cost of full replacement protection.  When she contacted the mover to recover the difference ($335.70) between her claim of $749.70 and her payment of $414.00, the mover advised that they were no longer responsible for any additional compensation.

7.  On 6 September 2001, DFAS-IN notified the applicant that her only recourse was to apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.

8.  On 19 November 2001, the Defense Legal Services Agency, after reviewing the applicant’s case, notified her that because “full replacement protection was ordered and paid for, but full replacement value was not paid,” she could attempt to get the Army to offset the $335.70 against a future payment to the mover, or she could petition this Board for relief from the $308.38 debt.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  When she contracted to ship her HHGs to her place of retirement, the applicant requested full replacement protection for her possessions.  The cost of this insurance was $420.75.  Since the Government would only pay $112.37, the applicant became responsible for $308.38.

2.  Through a series of errors, the Fort Drum Claims Office paid the applicant a depreciated value for the damage to her HHG.  When the applicant accepted this payment, the mover was released from any further liability.

3.  DFAS-IN charged the applicant a debt of $308.38 for her portion of the full replacement protection on her HHG.  However, the applicant did not receive full replacement value for her loss.  To continue to impose this debt against the applicant is inequitable and unjust.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned did not apply for full replacement protection for her HHG shipment of 18 June 1999, that she is relieved of the debt for same in the amount of $308.38, and that she be reimbursed for any and all moneys collected against this debt.

BOARD VOTE:  

__jl____  __tbr___  __rwa___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			Joann Langston
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001066184	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020709	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.1400	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.