RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01139 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be compensated for his Personally Procured Move (PPM) as 
briefed to him by the Hickam Transportation Management Office 
(TMO). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The TMO office incorrectly used “low cost” rates to counsel him 
on his PPM application rather than the newly implemented “Best 
Value” rates. As such, the counselor incorrectly estimated the 
amount of compensation he would receive for a “Do-it-Yourself” 
(DITY) move. 

 

He was not notified of the rate change until after his household 
goods were shipped. He would not have done a DITY move had he 
known the correct rate. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a letter from 
the Commander, and other forms associated with his move. 

 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is in the Regular Air Force serving at the grade 
of Senior Master Sergeant. 

 

On 21 May 2010, pursuant to Permanent Change of Station orders, 
from Hickam AFB, HI to Nellis AFB, NV, the applicant was 
counseled on PPMs. The applicant was quoted $17,745.24 as the 
“Estimated Gross Incentive” to personally procure his move. 
Based on that amount, the applicant was given an advance payment 
of $11,207.52. 

 


On 24 August 2010, the Nellis TMO computed the applicant’s 
actual cost as $6,285.87. Since the applicant received an 
advance, he owed the government, $1,471.06. On 27 January 2011, 
the Air Force remitted that debt. 

 

Effective 1 April 2010, change 283, to the JFTR, requires that 
Government Constructed Costs (GCC) be used to determine the 
incentive payments in PPM be based on “best value” versus the 
“low cots” charges. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

PPA HQ/DD recommends denial. DD states the JFTR requires the 
member’s incentive be based on 95 percent of the GCC, and at the 
time of the applicant’s shipment, the GCC was based on “best 
value” rates. The applicant’s total moving expenses totaled 
$6,285.87. Although, he did not receive as much incentive as he 
was initially advised, he did not lose any money on the PPM. 
The applicant applied for and was approved for a remission of 
the debt established for the excess advance payment received in 
the amount of $1,471.06. 

 

The complete DD evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant stated the advisory falsely states that he did not 
lose any money. The recommendation only considers the gross 
amount and reimbursable expenses. It does not consider the non-
reimbursable expenses, taxes and damages to his property. Those 
expenses were in the thousands. There is also emotional and 
physical stress, a price he and his family were willing to pay 
for the promised incentive. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit E. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 injustice warranting 
the relief sought in this application. Although it does appear 
the applicant was miscounseled regarding the amount of 


reimbursement he could expect to receive for a Personally 
Procured Move, he was fully compensated for his move and in 
reality received a de facto incentive through remission of the 
debt incurred for the excess advance initially received. We 
believe this constitutes proper and fitting relief. Therefore, 
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of PPA HQ/DD and 
adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice 
warranting further action by this Board. In the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-01139 in Executive Session on 8 September 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Vice Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Mar 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. PPA HQ/DD, Letter, dated 20 Jul 11 w/ atchs. 

 Exhibit D. SAF/MRBR, Letter, dated 29 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 22 Aug 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Vice Chair