RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00444 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be granted an additional 180 days of storage-in-transit (SIT) at government expense for her household goods (HHG). By amendment at Exhibit E, she receive reimbursement of expenses incurred due to miscommunication by the Traffic Management Office (TMO) property personnel staff of San Antonio, Texas and Fort Stewart, Georgia. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was misinformed by a counselor of the Personal Property Processing Office (PPPO) that she would be allowed to store her HHG for up to one year at her home of selection (HOS) since she was having a new home under construction. She was give assurance that getting approval for extensions would not be a problem since delays in construction of homes were common. Her travel and transportation entitlement extensions were about to expire so the counseling brief was weighted towards the shipping of her HHG to her HOS rather than temporary storage (SIT) where her HHG were currently located, which could have been done for a longer period of time. She was caused an extreme financial hardship and burden as she prepared to transition to her retired life after the military. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 1 September 2008, the applicant retired in the grade of chief master sergeant (E-9). On 6 August 2013, the applicant was notified of her final extension to her travel and transportation entitlements, until 31 August 2014. According to PPA HQ/ECAF, the applicant received approval for five extensions of the one year time limit (for a total of six years) in which to effect shipment of her HHG to her HOS. On 10 June 2014, the applicant initiated a DD Form 1299, Application for Shipment and/or Storage of Personal Property, to have her HHG picked up from San Antonio, Texas for destination in Knoxville, Tennessee. On 21 August 2014, the applicant’s HHG were placed into SIT in Tennessee for 90 days because there was no residence available to accept delivery. On 20 October 2014, the applicant initiated a DD Form 1857, Temporary Commercial Storage at Government Expense, requesting authorization for storage beyond the first 90 days. She was authorized an additional 90 days for a total of 180 days SIT, with an expiration date of 17 February 2015. On 22 December 2014, the applicant requested an exception to policy (ETP) for the extension of her SIT beyond the 180 day entitlement, due to having a house built. She indicated that she was not informed during counseling that the property would not be stored for one year if moved. On 7 January 2015, the applicant’s ETP request was disapproved by AF Personal Property Activity Headquarters. Specifically, there were no grounds to continue storage at government expense. On 2 March 2015, the storage of the applicant’s HHG in SIT was converted to her expense. On 26 March 2015, according to PPA HQ/ECAF, the applicant’s HHG were delivered at government expense to her residence. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: PPA HQ/ECAF recommends denial. In accordance with the Joint Travel Regulation (JTR), a member on active duty is authorized HHG transportation to a HOS upon retirement. The HHG must be turned over within one year following active duty termination. Also, a retired member is authorized nontemporary storage (NTS) of HHGs, which begins on the date the order is issued and terminates one year from the active duty termination date (the storage must be in the area where the property is located when the retirement order is issued). In this case, the applicant’s non temporary storage expired on 1 September 2009 since she retired on 1 September 2008. An extension of the one year time limit for shipment of HHG may be authorized up to a total of six years from the date of retirement. However, these extensions do not extend the government’s obligation for NTS storage costs longer than the one year period from the active duty termination date. A member is authorized 90 days of SIT (temporary storage), which is in conjunction with a HHG shipment. Whenever there are conditions beyond a member’s control in which their HHG in SIT cannot be withdrawn during the first 90 days, authorization may be granted for additional time, but not for more than an additional 90 days. Furthermore, additional SIT may not be authorized/approved when a member elects to have a home built while other housing is available or when a member elects to occupy private sector housing too small to accommodate their HHG. A review of the applicant’s case file indicates the 180 days SIT authorized was appropriate. She received five extensions, for a total of six years from the effective date of her retirement, to obtain a residence and effect movement of HHG to that residence at the HOS. The six years, plus the additional 180 days SIT provided ample time in which to make appropriate arrangements to establish a residence at this HOS and ship/receive HHG. The applicant’s decision to have a home built when there was other housing available is understandable; however, the JTR limits the amount of SIT in this situation to a maximum of 180 days. A complete copy of the PPA HQ/ECAF evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: She made all her decisions based on the information briefed to her during her shipment briefing by the air force. She argues that ever since the beginning of the changeover of the process from the air force to the army, she has experienced problems of miscommunication as it relates to the air force and army policies and procedures. All of her extensions granted under air force policy were valid. Furthermore, she reiterated that unbeknownst to her that if she had her HHG placed in SIT in Texas rather than Tennessee, she would have been granted an extension of one year to ship her HHG to her HOS. She was briefed that her HHG had to be shipped to her HOS before the final shipment extension expired, although her home was under construction. Moreover, she was advised that she had one year of storage at her destination to take delivery of her HHG since her house was under construction. She incurred expenses for the purchase of plane tickets, a rental car, storage fees, rent for an apartment, security deposit, renter’s insurance, and utilities due to the erroneous information that she received. This added to the stressors she was already experiencing. If the process and procedures the air force briefed would have been honored and her earned entitlements granted, this matter could have been avoided. 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. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include her rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case. While the applicant’s contentions are duly noted, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of record or the rationale provided by the OPR. In this respect, although the applicant states she experienced problems of miscommunication as it relates to the Air Force and Army policies and procedures, we note she was timely notified of her final extension to her travel and transportation entitlements. Moreover, she was afforded five extensions beyond the one year time limit for the shipment of her HHG to her HOS. While the position the applicant now finds herself in and the expenses she incurred are regrettable, we are not persuaded that it is due to an error on part of the Air Force. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2015-00444 in Executive Session on 17 September 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00444 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 January 2015, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, PPA HQ/ECAF, dated 21 May 2015. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 July 2015. Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 July 2015, w/atchs.