RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02765 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive compensation for his personally procured move (PPM) from Hawaii to Texas that he was quoted using rates calculated under the Transportation Operational Personal Property Standard (TOPS) system rather than those authorized by the Defense Personal Property System (DPS). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He would not have agreed to a PPM that would have provided no incentive payment and resulted in excess cost. The change from TOPS to DPS significantly reduced rates for PPMs between Hawaii and the CONUS. The Hickam Traffic Management Office (TMO) used the legacy TOPS to provide the applicant’s compensation estimate instead of DPS, as directed by the AF Personal Property Agency (PPA) HQ Advisory that transmitted the change and new Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) and AF supplement language. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of his receipts, a letter of support from the commander, a DD Form 2278, Application for Do It Yourself Move and Counseling Checklist, his request for remission and consequent approval from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), his permanent change of station (PCS) paperwork, and pertinent e-mail communications. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 14 Apr 10, the AF PPA HQ directed use of the new PPM module featured in the 1 Apr 10 release of DPS, effective on 15 Apr 10. This included changes to the JFTR, and execution of the “Best Value” methodology, significantly reducing the rates for PPMs between Hawaii and CONUS. The Hickam AFB TMO erroneously extended use the legacy TOPS to provide compensation estimates instead of DPS as required by AF PPA HQ. Change 283 to the JFTR required that, effective 1 Apr 10, the Government Constructed Cost (GCC) used in determining the incentive payments in PPMs be based upon “best value” charges versus the “low cost” charges. PPA HQ sent an advisory to the field requiring all AF PPMs processed in TOPS prior to 15 Apr 10 be closed out in TOPS, and all PPMs processed 15 Apr 10 or later be processed in DPS. The applicant’s PPM was initiated on 13 May 10 via DD Form 2278, Application for Do-It-Yourself Move and Counseling Checklist, thereby requiring the re-calculation of his PPM from the TOPS estimate to the DPS estimate. The applicant’s original estimate was calculated under TOPS and resulted in an estimated incentive payment of $16,341.05 and an advance operating allowance of $10,320.66. When the PPM was re-calculated under the required DPS, the applicant’s incentive payment was reduced to $8,977.60. Since he had already received an operating allowance of $10,320.66, he received a bill for $1,343.06, the difference between the authorized incentive payment, and the operating allowance previously received. The applicant applied for remission of the debt and the application was approved. The evidence of record indicates the applicant had $210.08 in out-of-pocket expenses. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: PPA HQ/ECAF recommends a partial grant in that since the applicant experienced a net loss of $210.08 (out-of-pocket) expenses, he should be reimbursed that amount. Regarding the applicant’s request for full compensation of his GCC ($16,341.05) based on the TOPS calculation; ECAF notes that Federal law explicitly prohibits the Department from paying any member under this program more that it would have cost the Government to ship their HHG. ECAF cites the JFTR which requires that the member’s incentive be based upon 95% of the GCC using the “best value” rates reflected in DPS. Although it is unfortunate the applicant did not receive as much incentive as he was initially advised, the difference between the initial estimate and the corrected estimate of $1,343.06 was remitted by the Air Force. The complete ECAF evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states he has met his burden of providing sufficient evidence that a material error or injustice occurred. There is no disagreement that he received inaccurate counseling, that he made the decision to do the PPM on behalf of his family based on that counseling, that his family and he expended significant time and effort to complete the PPM, and, that the error on the part of the Air Force has led to a significantly adverse impact on he and his family. The applicant’s complete submission 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting corrective action. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case and agree with the determination of the Air Force office of primary responsibility the applicant should be reimbursed for his out-of-pocket expenses related to his personally procured move (PPM). While it is regrettable the applicant did not receive the incentive payment expected, we believe this recommended relief is consistent with relief granted by the Board to others similarly situated. That is, while an error was made, the Board does not believe it to be in the interest of justice to correct a record contrary to provisions of law. Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that under competent authority, government procured transportation was not available and in accordance with Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR), Volume 1, paragraph U5320-D.1, he is authorized reimbursement for out of pocket expenses in the amount of $210.08. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-02765 in Executive Session on 6 Nov 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Jun 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, PPA HQ/ECAF, dated 19 Oct 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Nov 11. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Dec 11. Vice Chair