RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01992 

 

 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. Had he been briefed correctly, he would not have 
agreed to a PPM that provided no incentive and resulted in 
excess costs. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant 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 in the rank of 
lieutenant colonel. 

 

On 9 June 2010, pursuant to permanent change of station orders 
from Hickam AFB, HI to Minot AFB, ND, a TMO counselor briefed 
the applicant that he would receive an “Estimated Gross 
Incentive” of $22,556.80 to personally procure his move. Based 
on that amount, the applicant was given an advance payment of 
$14,246.40. 

 

On 16 November 2010, Minot’s TMO computed the applicant’s actual 
costs as $15,300.00, but his entitlement was $14,535.00. Since 
the applicant received an advance of $14,246.40, he incurred a 
debt of $722.47. On 5 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/ECAF recommends denial. 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 
$10,490.71. 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 remission of the 
debt established for the excess advance payment he received in 
the amount of 722.47. 

 

The complete ECAF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant respectfully disagrees with the Air Force 
advisory’s statement “it is unfortunate the applicant did not 
receive as much as he was initially advised, he did not lose any 
money on this PPM.” The $10,490.71 does not compensate him and 
his wife for the 250 man-hours of labor they performed. Nor 
does it account for his leave, time off work and the risk 
incurred incident to the move. If the TMO office at Hickam had 
correctly advised him, he would have concluded that would not be 
adequate compensation for the work needed. He would not have 
elected to perform a PPM. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. 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. As 
such, we believe he has received full and fitting relief. 
Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of PPA 
HQ/ECAF 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-2011-01992 in Executive Session on 12 March 2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 May 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, PPA HQ/ECAF, dated 13 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 23 Nov 11.