RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-04092 INDEX CODE: 128.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive the government constructive cost (GCC) and incentive payment for the personally procured move (PPM) of his household goods (HHG), that was in effect at the time of his Traffic Management Office (TMO) briefing (237% of the baseline rate) versus the 100% of the baseline rate that was in effect when his move actually took place. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The TMO counselor at Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB), FL counseled him that he would receive a rate of 237% if he decided to conduct a do-it-yourself (DITY) move of his HHG. He understood it was an estimate; however, he was not told that there would be a rate change between October and November. Since learning his entitlement would be much less than expected, it has placed a hardship on him, as he is getting married in December and was counting on the money. In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a personal statement and a Transportation Assistant’s memorandum for record. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of second lieutenant (O-1) with a date of rank of 17 November 2006. He has a Total Active Military Service Date of 17 August 2006 and a Total Active Federal Commissioned Service Date of 17 November 2006. The remaining relevant facts are contained in the Air Force advisory opinion at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: JPPSO-SAT/ECAF recommends denial of the applicant’s request. ECAF states the applicant was reassigned from Tyndall AFB, Florida to Tinker AFB, Oklahoma per special Order A-0781, dated 13 August 2007. On 15 August 2007, he submitted an application to effect a PPM of his HHG. Under the PPM method, he was entitled to receive an incentive payment of 95% of the GCC. The GCC is comprised of the cost for packing and line haul of the lowest rate carrier for the HHG weight or authorized weight allowance (whichever is lower) to his new duty station. At the time of his counseling, the TMO at Tyndall AFB provided an estimated GCC of $5,243.63 with an estimated incentive payment of $4,981.45. The estimate was based upon an estimated net weight of 5,000 pounds and a current GCC rate of $104.88 per one hundred pounds, which was 237% of the baseline rate. Rates for movement of personal property in the Continental United States (CONUS) are negotiated semi-annually between Headquarters Surface Deployment and Distribution Command and transportation service providers (TSP), with rate changes being effective 1 May and 1 November of each year. The rate at the time the applicant was counseled was 237% of the baseline rate and the rate at the time he actually performed the PPM was 100% of the baseline rate. In November 2007, the applicant performed the PPM and provided weight tickets reflecting a net weight of 11,660 pounds to the TMO at Tinker AFB for review and certification for payment. His prescribed weight allowance was 10,000 pounds; therefore, the TMO used the authorized weight of 10,000 pounds and the current GCC rate of $40.90 per hundred pounds which was 100% of the base line rate. The TMO determined the actual GCC to be $4,090.00 with an authorized incentive of $3,885.50 based on the authorized weight of 10,000 pounds. Paragraph U5320-D.2, to the Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) provides that a member who personally arranges for transportation of personal property is authorized actual cost reimbursement not to exceed the Government’s constructed transportation, or payment of a monetary allowance to equal 95% of the GCC. The calculations made at the time of counseling are just an estimate. The actual payment is based upon the cost the Government would have paid to ship the actual weight at the time the PPM was made. Had the Government arranged for the shipment of the applicant’s property at the time the applicant made his PPM, the cost would have been based upon 100% of the baseline rate. The cost receipts submitted as a result of his PPM was less than the incentive received; therefore, he did not lose any funds making the PPM. The ECAF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 August 2008 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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 an injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ _ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 this application in Executive Session on 8 October 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2007-04092 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dtd 6 Dec 07, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, JPPSO-SAT/ECAF, dtd 24 Jun 08, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 22 Aug 08.