IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007775 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007775 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ___________x______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007775 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests approval of an exception to policy (ETP) to receive incentive-based reimbursement of his personally procured move (PPM) vice cost-based reimbursement. 2. The applicant states: a. He originally submitted a request for an ETP for reimbursement through the Joint Personnel Property Shipping Office – North Central (JPPSO-NC) to the Army G-4. He was notified that he was only approved for cost-based reimbursement covering his direct costs and not an incentive-based reimbursement. He believes this to be neither fair nor justified based on the circumstances and facts. He had no other choice but to conduct the move on his own as a PPM due to his orders timeline and the availability of a commercial mover. He was briefed that a PPM was authorized and to use this method to move his household goods (HHG). b. Upon receipt of permanent change of station (PCS) orders, he worked expeditiously to coordinate everything necessary for the PCS in a very short time. When he out-processed the JPPSO at Fort Carson, CO, he was told that commercial carriers would not be available in the time frame he required due to the summer surge and short suspense due to his orders. As he worked with personnel at the Fort Carson JPPSO to complete his DD Form 2278 (Application for Do It Yourself Move and Counseling Checklist), he was told the rates for Canada had not yet been populated in the Defense Personal Property System (DPS). He was advised he could not complete the DD Form 2278 prior to clearing and departing the installation due to the lack of rates in the DPS, but he could complete it once he had conducted the move and the rates were entered. He was advised by officials at the Fort Carson JPPSO that a PPM to Canada was his only option under the circumstances and gave every indication he was authorized to do so. c. Based on this information, he made his own arrangements for a PPM to meet his PCS timeline. He took several days of leave and he and his family personally packed and loaded a 28-foot ABF trailer from 2 through 5 May 2015. He then went on temporary duty en route to school while his family stayed in Colorado and his HHG remained in temporary storage in the trailer. d. He and his family arrived in Canada on 27 August 2015, after which he submitted all the necessary paperwork to JPPSO-NC for reimbursement. On 5 October 2015, he received word there was an issue with processing his PPM reimbursement in the system due to DPS showing one-time only rates and the Army was not authorized to execute a PPM to Canada because no clear guidance had been issued. He requested an ETP for incentive-based PPM through the JPPSO to the Army G-4 for approval on or about 9 October 2015. On 23 November, he was informed his request for an ETP was partially denied. He was approved for cost-based reimbursement that would only cover the actual costs incurred. e. Due to the lack of commercial transportation and his timeline, he was advised to proceed with the PPM by officials at the Fort Carson JPPSO. He took several days of leave and he and his family spent several hundred man-hours packing and loading their HHG in the commercial trailer and used their privately owned vehicles to move a significant portion of their HHG. A cost-based reimbursement does not pay him for the days of leave he took or the significant labor involved in packing and loading, then unpacking and unloading them from the trailer. It also does not pay for the portion they moved in their privately owned vehicles, but rather the direct cost to rent and then transport the 28-foot trailer. f. Only through approval of an incentive-based reimbursement can he recoup his indirect costs of lost leave days, personal and family labor, and the use of their own vehicles for a portion of the PPM. An incentive-based reimbursement of a PPM is a routine method used by Soldiers performing PPMs to Fort Drum, NY, just over 100 miles south of his current assignment. If the DPS precludes his PPM being incentive-based due to the destination move address being in Canada and not loaded into the system, he proposes the location Fort Drum, NY, be substituted as the destination in order to process the ETP. He understands this may not afford him quite as large an incentive-based payment due to the slightly shorter distance, but believes it would be much closer to justified and fair than a purely cost-based reimbursement. g. He included a self-authored timeline of events that transpired between receipt of his PCS orders in April 2015 and receipt of partial grant of his ETP request in November 2015. 3. The applicant provides: * self-authored memorandum to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, dated 21 April 2016 * Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division and Fort Carson, Orders 114-700, dated 24 April 2015 * Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division and Fort Carson, Orders 121-703, dated 1 May 2015 * ABF Freight System invoice, dated 1 May 2015 * ABF Freight System U-Pack bills of lading, dated 1 May 2015 and 14 August 2015 * nine miscellaneous sales receipts * DD Form 1351-2 (Travel Voucher or Subvoucher), dated 18 September 2015 * PPM Checklist and Expense Certification, dated 18 September 2015 * request for an ETP for reimbursement of PPM, dated 6 October 2015 * email correspondence with officials at JPPSO-NC CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant is currently serving as a major stationed at the Canadian Joint Operations Command, Military Exchange Personnel Program, U.S. Army North in Ottawa, Canada. 2. Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division and Fort Carson, Orders 114-700, dated 24 April 2015 directed him to proceed on PCS from Fort Carson, CO, to Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, with a reporting date of no later than 1 September 2015. 3. Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division and Fort Carson, Orders 121-703, dated 1 May 2015, amended the above orders to include concurrent travel of his family members. 4. According the timeline he provided, he received orders directing him to report to intermediate level education (ILE) on 7 May 2015. He was counseled by JPPSO at Fort Carson, CO, on 28 April 2015 that commercial carriers would not be available in the time frame he required due to the summer surge and short suspense. He was told the rates had not been populated in DPS for Canada, thus he could not complete the DD Form 2278 prior to his move, but that he should proceed with the PPM nonetheless. He was never informed that a PPM was not an option. He packed and loaded his HHG into a trailer for temporary storage from 2 through 5 May 2015. On 7 May 2015, he reported to the ILE satellite course and graduated on 21 August 2015. His HHG were delivered to Ottawa, Canada on 28 August 2015 and he unpacked them from 28 through 30 August 2015. He submitted his PPM claim to JPPSO-NC on 25 September 2015. 5. According to email correspondence dated 5 October 2015, an official at JPPSO-NC relayed to him the difficulties she encountered in attempting to enter his PPM claim in DPS. The system would not allow for a PPM from Colorado to Canada due to the unavailability of rates beyond those in the category "one-time-only." She advised him to request an ETP for reimbursement of his PPM, as she was unable to process it via DPS. 6. He requested an ETP for reimbursement of his PPM on 6 October 2015. In his request, he stated he had no choice but to conduct a PPM and was not aware this was not an option for a move to Canada. He was advised by the JPPSO-NC via email correspondence on 23 November 2015 that his ETP was approved for the actual cost he spent during the movement of his HHG; however, the reimbursement was not incentive based. Through further email correspondence, he was advised to file an appeal with the Army Board for Correction of Military Records to request ETP approval for incentive-based reimbursement. 7. The Chief, Transportation Policy Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4 (Logistics), provided an advisory opinion on 11 July 2016. It states in accordance with the Joint Travel Regulations, chapter 5, paragraph 5210.4, when Government-procured transportation is not available, a service member is authorized actual cost reimbursement when he/she personally arranges for transportation. At the time of the applicant's PCS move, there were no established rates to determine the incentive-based reimbursement. 8. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion and given an opportunity to respond. On 4 August 2016, he states he found the opinion flawed. a. He claims that Government-procured transportation was indeed available, thus the portion of the regulation pertaining to non-availability of Government-procured transportation does not apply to him. That portion of the regulation goes on to state that "a member, who personally arranges for transportation is authorized actual cost reimbursement when a shipping/transportation officer is not available or instructs the member, in writing, to transport HHC…at personal expense." Neither of these instances applied to him as a transportation officer was available at the time and he was not instructed about anything in writing. b. Additionally, the Army Personally Procured Transportation (PPT) and Non-Temporary Storage Supplemental Policy, section 1, paragraph 19, states that "When a personal property shipping office (PPSO) is unable to arrange Government transportation…the PPSO must instruct a member in writing to personally procure transportation" and this cannot transpire until they have first requested approval from Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA). It requires the member to be informed in writing with a letter of non-availability. In his case, the PPSO was able to arrange transportation, but they proposed a PPM better suited his situation. He never received a letter of non-availability nor does he believe a request was ever made because both he and the PPSO believed an incentive-based PPM was authorized and best suited his needs. c. Both the Joint Travel Regulations and the Army PPT policy state when Government-procured HHG transportation is available (and it was in his situation) and the member arranges for their own transportation, that "a member is authorized payment of a monetary allowance equal to 95% of all the GCC [Government constructive cost] for the actual HHG weight transported not to exceed the member's maximum weight allowance." This monetary allowance equates to what has been referred to as the incentive-based reimbursement in this case. d. The fact that there were no established rates to determine the incentive-based reimbursement at the time of his move has no bearing on whether he is authorized incentive-based reimbursement. Further, it implies that there could now be established rates with which to determine his reimbursement. Even if rates are still not established, he is authorized incentive-based reimbursement and the lack of rates should not preclude it. The Government routinely moves people to Ottawa and should be able to figure out the GCC without an established rate. If a rate to Ottawa cannot be determined, he suggests using the rate to Fort Drum, NY. REFERENCES: 1. The Joint Travel Regulations prescribe policy, criteria, and administrative instructions regarding per diem, travel, and transportation for Uniformed Service Members and Department of Defense civilian employees. Chapter 5 (Permanent Duty Travel), paragraph 5210 (Transportation Methods) states: a. An eligible member (i.e., a member or next of kin in the case of a member's death) may personally arrange for HHG transportation and/or non-temporary storage (NTS). b. When Government-procured HHG transportation and/or NTS is not available, a member who personally arranges for transportation/NTS, is authorized actual-cost reimbursement when a shipping/transportation officer is not available, or the shipping/transportation officer instructs the member, in writing, to transport HHG or place them in NTS at personal expense. c. When Government-procured HHG transportation and/or NTS is available, a member who arranges for transportation or NTS is authorized either actual reimbursement or a monetary allowance. (1) Actual-cost reimbursement is not to exceed the Government's constructed "Best Value" transportation and/or NTS cost for the actual HHG weight transported not to exceed the member's maximum HHG weight. Payment of accessorial charges may be authorized/approved in conjunction with actual-cost reimbursement when the charges would have been authorized during a Government-arranged move and all applicable tariff approval rules have been met. (2) Payment of a monetary allowance equal to 95 percent of the Government's constructed "Best Value" cost for the actual HHG weight transported not to exceed the member's maximum HHG weight. Authorized GCC calculation factors are shown in paragraph 5210-D9. 2. Army Personally Procured Transportation and Non-Temporary Storage Supplemental Policy, dated 15 April 2010, provides Army supplemental policy to be used in conjunction with the Joint Travel Regulations. It states: a. When a PPSO is unable to arrange Government transportation and/or NTS, the PPSO/Personal Property Processing Office must instruct a member in writing to personally procure transportation and/or NTS. The member is authorized actual cost reimbursement not to exceed the member's maximum authorized HHG weight allowance. b. Prior to advising a member to personally procure transportation and/or NTS, the transportation office must submit a request for authorization through Installation Management Command channels to HQDA. The request must provide the reason the transportation office cannot provide Government-arranged transportation, such as the member's availability dates and transportation service provider refusals. c. Upon approval by HQDA, the PPSO must provide the member a letter of non-availability for actual cost reimbursement. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant requests an ETP to receive incentive-based reimbursement of his PPM to Canada vice cost-based reimbursement. 2. In both his 6 October 2015 initial request for PPM reimbursement and his 21 April 2016 memorandum to the Board, he claims to have attended a JPPSO briefing upon clearing the installation where he was informed there were no available commercial carriers in the time frame he required due to the summer surge and the short suspense of his orders and that he had no other choice but to conduct the move on his own as a PPM. 3. It is unclear what he intends to convey when he says no commercial carriers were available "in the timeline he required." Based on the timeline he provided to the Board in his application, the time between his receipt of orders on 24 April 2015 and reporting to ILE on 7 May 2015 was a mere 2 weeks. It is conceivable he is attempting to convey that no commercial carriers were available in that 2-week time span between the receipt of orders and his temporary duty reporting date. On the other hand, his PCS reporting date to Ottawa, Canada, was not until 1 September 2015, over 4 months later, which afforded much more time for the Government to potentially procure a commercial carrier. He has not fully explained in what time frame no carrier was available or whether he was offered the option of providing his spouse with a power of attorney to enable the movement of the HHG while he was in ILE, as they would not move as a family to their new home in Canada until after his graduation from ILE at the end of August 2015. 4. It is not until his July 2016 rebuttal to the advisory opinion provided by the Chief, Transportation Policy Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, that he instead insists there was indeed Government-procured commercial transportation available to him. He makes no effort to explain the discrepancy between his earlier claims of non-availability and this new claim of availability, nor does he shed any light on why he did not use the Government-procured commercial transportation if it were available, thereby sparing him the sweat-equity of packing and moving his HHG on his own for which he feels he should be compensated. 5. He has not provided any paperwork showing he was counseled prior to his move regarding either commercial carrier availability or non-availability, that he was advised to conduct a PPM, or that he was informed the PPM would be reimbursed at an incentive-based rate, although he does claim to have been verbally counseled during his JPPSO briefing. He also states he knew from JPPSO officials prior to his PPM that the DPS did not contain rates for Ottawa, Canada, although it appears he thought the rates would be populated at a later date and likely did not know the full extent of what the lack of rates entails. 6. Per the Joint Travel Regulations, a service member is authorized actual-cost reimbursement when Government-procured transportation is not available and he/she personally arranges for transportation. Notification of non-availability of Government-procured transportation must be made to the service member in writing. 7. Per the same regulatory guidance, when Government-procured transportation is available and the service member arranges for transportation, the service member is authorized either actual-cost reimbursement (which may include authorized payment of accessorial charges when those charges would have been authorized during a Government-arranged move) or he/she is authorized payment of a monetary allowance equal to 95-percent of the Government's constructed "Best Value" cost for the actual HHG weight transported. This monetary allowance is what the applicant is referring to as incentive-based reimbursement and believes he is entitled to. The Joint Travel Regulations offers that either method of reimbursement is authorized for PPM when Government-procured transportation is available. It does not solely mandate the monetary allowance for reimbursement. 8. At the time of his PCS move, there was no established rate to determine an incentive based reimbursement for a PPM to Ottawa, Canada, because there was not enough transportation to/from that location to have an established rate. This information is relevant, despite his claim that it has no bearing on his case, because an incentive-based reimbursement for a PPM to a location without an established rate cannot be made. Incentive-based PPM reimbursement is based on the established rate. Without an established rate, there is no formula whereby the payment can be calculated. The established rate for another location 100 miles way cannot be substituted. 9. Records indicate his ETP request was approved for reimbursement of the total actual costs he incurred in the PPM; thus he did not suffer any financial loss through the execution of his PPM. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160007775 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160007775 9 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2