IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 September 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080012861 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show he was granted an extension of Government coverage of the costs of the storage of his household goods. 2. The applicant states that on 9 April 2008, he was notified for the first time that charges for the storage of his household goods was being transferred to him and charges would be applied retroactively. The applicant contends that this belated notification denied him the opportunity to consider alternative means for storage.  The applicant believes that the Government’s failure to follow its regulatory obligation to notify him of the impending transfer of responsibility for the storage of his household goods should require the Government to assume any responsibility for the resultant charges and/or complications. 3. The applicant provides a letter he wrote on 11 April 2008 requesting that the costs for the additional three months of storage continue to be borne by the Government. In that letter the applicant explains that he placed his household goods in storage in 2004 when he was reassigned to Germany. He returned to the United States and was assigned to Carlisle Barracks in July 2007. He obtained temporary quarters upon his arrival at Carlisle Barracks and moved into his permanent residence in April 2008. When he called for shipment of his household goods, he was informed he had exceeded the allotted storage time and that the charges for storage had been transferred to him effective 18 December 2007. The applicant stated that if he had been notified that the charges would be transferred to him in a timely manner, he could have made a decision to avoid the additional costs. 4. The applicant also submits the denial of his request for extension of Government coverage of the costs of the storage of his household goods. 5. The applicant submits excerpts from DTR 4500.9-R, Defense Transportation Regulation Part IV, and a cash collection voucher. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant was commissioned on 31 December 1984, entered active duty on 13 January 1985, served on active duty continuously, graduated from Command and General Staff College in 1995 and National War College in 2003, and was promoted to colonel on 2 July 2006. 2. The applicant served as the Deputy Command Chaplain in Germany. His last Officer Evaluation Report (OER) shows that he was rated for his duties as a Deputy Command Chaplain until 9 June 2007. 3. The applicant’s OER for his duties as the Director, Ethical Development at the U.S. Army War College was for the period 10 June 2007 to 15 April 2008. 4. DTR 4500.9-R states that upon application for non-temporary storage (NTS), the transportation officer (TO) will enter the estimated storage entitlement expiration date on the DD Form 1299, Block 13. This date is determined by adding the tour length to the reporting month cited in the orders. 5. DTR 4500.9-R continues that not later than 45 days before the first day of the month when the NTS entitlement is due to expire, the TO will notify the officer by certified letter of the impending NTS entitlement expiration. If the certified letter is not received in a timely manner, the TO will contact the military personnel locator office to make a final attempt to locate the officer. When all notification and locator efforts have failed, the TO will take necessary steps to convert the storage fees to the officers expense. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s record is silent as to the efforts made by the TO to notify the applicant that his NTS entitlement was due to expire. However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must make a presumption of regularity, that what the Government did was correct. In this case, the presumption of regularity is that the TO did, in fact, make reasonable efforts to notify the applicant that his NTS entitlement was due to expire. 2. In addition, it is reasonable to presume that a colonel with the applicant’s education and years of service would realize that his entitlement to household storage would end upon his return to the United States. That expiration date would also have been entered on the form the applicant completed to place his household goods in storage. As such, the applicant would have known the date his entitlement to storage expired. 3. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __X_____ ___X____ ___X___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _______ _ X _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080012861 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080012861 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1