The Army Claims Personal Property Program Is Not Working
Anyone who has spent any time in the military realizes that personal
property tends to get damaged or go missing with frequent Permanent Change
of Station (PCS) moves. Lately, Soldiers and Family members have become
increasingly frustrated—and many are not afraid to speak up, even to Army
senior leadership. In October 2018, then-Secretary of the Army Mark Esper,
then-Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley, and then-Sergeant Major of the
Army Daniel Dailey were peppered with complaints about the gross negligence
of moving companies.
article highlighted the broken process causing one family over $26,000 of
Additionally, a petition demanding military moving companies be held
accountable has garnered over 103,000 signatures.
In theory, Soldiers whose property is lost or damaged are not without a
remedy. In fact, they have two: filing a claim directly with the
Transportation Service Provider (TSP) under the Full Replacement Value Law
(FRVL) or filing a claim with the U.S. Army Claims Service (USARCS) Center
for Personnel Claims Support (CPCS) under the Military Personnel and
Civilian Employees Claims Act (PCA).
While there are numerous differences in the processes, the most important
distinction is that PCA claims are paid at an often greatly-depreciated
value, while FRVL claims are supposed to be paid at full replacement value.
Not surprisingly, the great majority of Soldiers file with a TSP under the
Soldiers unhappy with a TSP’s adjudication can subsequently transfer their
claim to the CPCS under the PCA.
In the end, the Army can pay a depreciated amount, recoup the full
replacement value from the TSP, and reimburse the Soldier the difference.
However, this process can be slow and frustrating. The Army personal
property program should be modified to allow Soldiers a right to file a
direct appeal of the TSP’s adjudication with Army claims personnel during
the FRVL claim.
This process would save the Army time and money, improve Soldier
satisfaction, and eliminate most claims under the PCA and the resulting
Because of the complex nature of filing a claim and low likelihood of
receiving full replacement value, many Soldiers opt out of the lengthy and
cumbersome process entirely, going unreimbursed for damages.
Perhaps more troubling is that junior enlisted Soldiers—who are normally
less able to absorb the financial loss associated with damaged or missing
property—are significantly less satisfied with the FRVL claims process than
senior enlisted personnel, officers, and Civilians, in that order.
Two purposes of the Army personal property program are to “maintain morale”
and “prevent financial hardship.”
Unfortunately, when sixty percent of Soldiers feel they are not adequately
reimbursed, those goals are not being met.
The Army Personal Property Program in Practice
The best way to understand the Army personal property program is as two
independent, sequential processes. The FRVL was designed to fully reimburse
Soldiers by holding TSPs directly responsible for damages.
A typical claimant starts the process by filing a claim with the TSP.
In fact, over ninety percent of claims are handled by the TSP.
However, that does not necessarily mean ninety percent of Soldiers are
satisfied with the TSP’s handling of their claim. Unfortunately, many
Soldiers unsatisfied with a TSP’s denial or unsatisfactory offer do not file
a second claim under the PCA.
The reasons Soldiers do not file a second claim include frustration with the
process, little hope for better results, or worse, they do not realize there
is another process available.
When willing to file a claim, a Soldier normally initiates the TSP claims
process by filing a notification of loss or damage (NOLD).
This can be done concurrently as the goods are delivered, or up to
seventy-five days later; absent extraordinary circumstances, the TSP can
deny the claim entirely if the Soldier misses the deadline.
Once a TSP receives an NOLD, the Soldier must file a claim within nine
months of delivery to remain eligible for full replacement value.
If a Soldier files a claim between nine months and two years from the date
of delivery, the TSP is liable for the depreciated value of the property
instead of the full replacement value.
Notifications of loss or damage and claims are normally filed on the Defense
Personal Property System (DPS) website.
If a claim has not been fully satisfied by the TSP within thirty days, the
Soldier can transfer their claim to the CPCS for adjudication under the PCA.
The CPCS will then adjudicate the claim, provided it is received within two
years of the shipment’s delivery.
Under the PCA, the CPCS is only authorized to pay depreciated value for the
property, instead of the full replacement value Soldiers are supposed to
receive from the TSP.
Regrettably, property value significantly depreciates each year—up to
seventy-five percent—with rates varying based on the property’s age and
After paying a claim, the Army can pursue an affirmative claim against the
TSP under the Federal Claims Collection Act within four years, in theory
recovering the full replacement value.
The TSP’s liability is based upon the FRVL as implemented through the
Under the Business Rules, TSPs have sixty days to pay, deny, or make a
counteroffer on the recovery claim.
If the Army declines the counteroffer and the TSP fails to pay, the Army can
withhold the amount from funds the government owes the TSP.
If the TSP continues to dispute the amount of liability, it can file an
appeal with the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) or file suit
in federal court.
If the Army successfully recovers funds from the TSP, it pays the Soldier
the difference between the depreciated amount initially paid by the CPCS and
the amount recovered from the TSP
In effect, the Army is examining the claim the TSP received, evaluating it
impartially, and determining whether or not the TSP did it correctly. If the
TSP adjudicated the claim improperly, the Army requires the TSP to pay the
correct amount through a recovery action.
Unfortunately, this entire process can take several years.
Soldiers who file initially with the CPCS instead of the TSP follow a
similar process, except they are not eligible for full replacement value.
The Army will still pursue a recovery action against the TSP for the
depreciated value, and nothing else will be remitted to the Soldier.
Soldiers Are Unsatisfied with the Full Replacement Value Claims Process
Many Soldiers are unhappy with the FRVL claims process.
In 2010, USARCS commissioned a survey to gather information relating to
Despite its moniker, only forty percent of those surveyed felt they received
full replacement value.
Only half were satisfied with the FRVL claims process,
and about half felt the PCA claims process worked better.
Those statistics are not surprising, given the cumbersome, time-consuming,
and frustrating process of filing an FRVL claim.
Of those who suffered damage but had not filed a claim, sixty percent either
did not know how to file a claim through the DPS claims website or thought
the filing process was too difficult or time-consuming.
The most troubling observation was that junior enlisted respondents were
overwhelmingly unsatisfied with the FRVL claims process.
Forty-two percent of senior enlisted respondents were satisfied, and less
than sixty percent of officers and Civilian employees were satisfied.
The process is complicated by the DPS website not being user-friendly or
Another, perhaps more significant barrier for Soldiers is the monetary
incentive for TSPs to deny or minimize liability.
Transportation Service Providers Are Not Playing by the Rules
The adjudication authority is the most significant difference between the
FRVL and PCA claims processes. Of note, PCA claims are adjudicated by Army
claims personnel, while FRVL claims are adjudicated by claims adjusters
employed by the TSP responsible for the shipment. Each claim a TSP pays
reduces or even eliminates the profits made on that shipment.
The TSP’s direct control over the entire shipment process further aggravates
this potential for bias. The DPS system empowers the TSP to manage PCS moves
from pick-up through claims settlement, and the only likely interaction a
Soldier has during an entire moving process will be with the TSP’s agents.
This has the practical effect of eliminating Army claims oversight for most
The TSP normally hires the moving company, which in turn hires the packers
The packers or drivers then prepare the inventory, including notes on the
condition of the Soldier’s property.
On occasion, TSP agents exaggerate pre-existing damage or indicate property
When not discovered and remedied by the Soldier
, this practice allows TSPs to deny a subsequent claim based upon
Even though most TSPs and their agents do not use these practices, the
minimal and removed oversight of the DPS system incentivizes them to do so.
Even without a TSP instructing its agents to exaggerate pre-existing damage
or otherwise minimize liability, agents have an inherent duty of loyalty to
the carrier that hired them, as well as a self-interest to secure future
employment. The agent’s actions and the inventory will be reviewed by the
TSP, who will then adjudicate and pay or deny the claim using their own
While the PCA empowers and favors the Soldier, the current FRVL process
empowers and favors the TSP.
Consequently, it is not surprising that only forty percent of Soldiers would
recommend their TSP to others.
While the system has an oversight mechanism, it is simply too complicated
and time-consuming for many Soldiers to utilize; as a result, an
incalculable amount of damages goes unreimbursed.
Even when TSPs pay claims, a major frustration is that they generally only
pay about half the amount claimed.
As an illustration of TSP underpayment, in the relatively rare instance when
a Soldier files a PCA claim, the CPCS pays an average of about $1,500 per
Stated in other terms, USARCS usually recovers over $1.5 million wrongfully
or mistakenly withheld by TSPs each year.
Regrettably, USARCS only recovers on claims filed with the CPCS under the
About forty thousand Army claims are filed each year with TSPs, but only
about three percent of those are transferred under the PCA.
While that number may sound reassuring, it does not indicate that the TSPs
adjudicate ninety-seven percent of claims fairly; Soldiers are often just
frustrated with the process or ignorant of their options.
The 2010 USARCS Survey found that seventy-eight percent of Soldiers
unsatisfied with a TSP’s partial payment did not subsequently file under the
PCA, thereby eliminating Army oversight.
While it is impossible to determine exactly how much damage goes
unreimbursed, TSPs underpay Soldiers’ claimed amounts by an average of over
$450 million a year.
The Army needs a better way to more actively monitor FRVL claims and
simultaneously encourage Soldiers to use the process.
Many Soldiers Do Not Fully Utilize the Army Personal Property Program
The claims process can be tedious and frustrating, and many Soldiers seem to
perform a cost-benefit analysis before proceeding.
Simply filing a claim can take hours or even days, depending on several
factors, including: the number of items damaged or missing; the
photographic, video, and documentary evidence available; the Soldier’s
computer access, skill, and familiarity with the DPS claims website; and any
other work or family obligations.
There can often be little perceived benefit to filing a claim, considering
the cumbersome process, relatively high rate of denials, and low rate of
This cost-benefit analysis could explain why so very few Soldiers navigate
the entire claims process, many giving up at each level. In the end,
relatively few who file a claim actually receive payment from a TSP.
Many Soldiers’ property is lost or damaged during their move, but only a
small portion of those provide timely notice.
Of those who provide notice, even fewer actually file a claim with the TSP.
For those who actually file a claim, less than forty percent receive
satisfactory reimbursement from the TSP.
Most importantly, despite the ability to file a subsequent PCA claim to
receive fair payment, only about one-fifth of those not satisfied actually
Soldiers fall out of the process at each level, and very few who suffer loss
or damage navigate the entire process to receive satisfactory reimbursement.
In theory, the FRVL process should minimize the burden on the Army by
shifting the workload from the Army to the TSPs. It certainly does, and the
great majority of claims are never filed under the PCA; therefore, the Army
has no real oversight on those claims.
In the rare instance when a Soldier does transfer a claim to the CPCS after
a TSP denial or unsatisfactory offer, the result is an excessive amount of
time and a substantial duplication of work.
While the FRVL claims process has been successful at minimizing the Army
workload, Soldiers choosing to go unreimbursed for damages is likely a
Although this makes the Army personal property program manageable, the FRVL
is not functioning as Congress intended. Solutions are needed to ensure
Soldiers are properly reimbursed.
The Solution: A Direct Appeal
The Army should establish a process for a direct appeal to the CPCS
immediately following a TSP’s adjudication—prior to any claim under the PCA.
Ideally, all TSPs would adjudicate each claim fairly, based on the evidence
with minimal Army oversight; however, in practice that has proven not to be
Easier and streamlined access to Army oversight is necessary to ensure TSPs
pay full replacement value.
A direct appeal would simplify the Army personal property program and
greatly reduce the time required to settle claims. The current process is
terribly inefficient; with a direct appeal, the number of steps required to
navigate the claims process would be cut in half—reducing the length of time
from multiple years to about three months.
Instead of filing an entirely new claim under separate statutory authority,
if a Soldier did not agree with the TSP’s denial, the amount offered, or if
a TSP failed to respond within thirty days, the Soldier would contact the
CPCS by email or telephone. The CPCS personnel could then impartially
evaluate the claim, weigh the evidence, and make determinations as to the
amount of the TSP’s liability, if any.
Allowing a direct appeal immediately following
the TSP’s initial adjudication would enable Army claims personnel to quickly
evaluate the claim almost concurrently with the TSP’s adjudication. The CPCS
could either request a copy of the claim or access the DPS claims website
directly, and it would assess liability using the existing PCA claim
adjudication guidelines, except for mandatory depreciation. If the CPCS
assesses liability, it should notify the TSP and provide any additional
documentary evidence considered. Adapting the current rules, the TSP would
have sixty days to pay the claim, deny the claim, or make a settlement
If no agreement is reached, the Army would collect the funds by
administrative offset from amounts due the TSP.
If the TSP still disputes liability, it would utilize existing procedures to
file a DOHA appeal or a suit in federal court.
With a direct appeal, the shorter lapse of time between initial TSP
adjudication and an ultimate USARCS liability determination would streamline
the process to fully reimburse the Soldier quickly. Each claim
satisfactorily paid by the TSP is one less claim filed under the PCA, sent
to recovery, and then potentially disputed in DOHA or in federal court.
Quicker access to impartial Army claims personnel would likely increase the
number of Soldiers willing to file a claim. Soldiers would also be more
likely to contact the CPCS because no duplication of effort is necessary
with a direct appeal; CPCS personnel would use the claim data and
substantiation already entered in the DPS claims website. The only thing
required of a Soldier would be to make a phone call or send an email.
Most importantly, a direct appeal could be implemented without need for
statutory or Army regulatory change. United States Transportation Command
would simply have to amend the Business Rules, which could take effect
Under the FRVL, TSPs are already liable for the full replacement value of
lost or damaged items, so this change would not expose them to greater
financial liability. The current system ends in the same way; a direct
appeal just truncates the process, saving time and resources. A direct
appeal would make it easier for and incentivize Soldiers to participate,
thereby receiving full reimbursement for their losses. While there are
existing systems to accomplish the same goal, they are too inefficient,
difficult, and time-consuming for many Soldiers to use.
A direct appeal would provide the Army a faster, more convenient way to hold
TSPs accountable for their mandated liability under federal law.
Furthermore, the availability of an easier review process could encourage
TSPs to be fairer and more transparent in their adjudication.
The Army personal property program is eroding morale and causing financial
hardship effectively for many Soldiers.
Congress mandated that TSPs be held liable for the full replacement value
resulting from the loss or damage of property in their care.
In reality, TSPs are not being held fully accountable, and Soldiers are
bearing the financial burden.
While the current process affords some oversight, that oversight only works
when Soldiers navigate the entire cumbersome process, which most Soldiers
are unable or unwilling to do.
As a result, many TSPs escape full financial liability for damages incurred
Even when it works properly, the current design is slow, frustrating, and
A direct appeal would streamline the process and can be implemented by
modifying the Business Rules. The TSPs should be encouraged that a direct
appeal would not result in any increased liability, it would only improve
the Army’s ability to hold them accountable for their existing statutory
obligation. Contrary to congressional intent, Soldiers and their Families do
not receive full replacement value.
The Army must act to restore their faith in the program.
Family Members Voice Concerns with Army Leadership
Association of the United States Army
(Oct. 9, 2018),
The Military Moves Hundreds of Thousands of Families Each Summer. Many of
Them Don’t Go Well
(Oct. 22, 2018), http://time.com/5424172/military-family-moves/.
After brutal PCS season, thousands sign petition to hold moving companies
accountable for loss, damage
(Aug. 28, 2018),
U.S. Transportation Command
Defense Personal Property Program Claims and Liability Business Rules
(Dec. 12, 2017) [hereinafter
The Army Personal Property Program in Practice.
note 4, §
As used in this article, “Army personal property program” refers to the
processes and claims under the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees
Claims Act (PCA) and the Full Replacement Value Law (FRVL), as well as their
interplay as Soldiers seek reimbursement for lost or damaged property
incident to service. The term “direct appeal” refers to the proposed process
whereby a Soldier unhappy with a Transportation Service Provider’s (TSP)
adjudication could file an appeal of the TSP’s decision directly with Army
claims personnel, still operating under the FRVL, prior to any claim under
U.S. Army Claims Service, Claims Service Full Replacement Value Survey
(Nov. 2010) (on file with author) (e-mail surveying approximately 21,603
Soldiers and Civilians with Government-sponsored moves between 1 May 2008
through 30 September 2009, of which 1,598 responses were anonymous)
[hereinafter FRV Survey].
U.S. Dep’t of Army, Reg. 27-20, Claims
(8 Feb. 2008) [hereinafter AR 27-20].
13. FRV Survey,
note 10, at 40. According to the survey, only forty percent of claimants who
filed a claim with a TSP felt they were adequately reimbursed.
note 4, §§ 1.1.1–2. The concept of holding TSPs accountable when goods are
damaged while in their custody is not new; even without the FRVL, the Army
pursued recovery actions against TSPs and other liable parties through the
Federal Claims Collection Act.
31 U.S.C. §§ 3701–20(e) (2018).
note 4, §§
Soldiers are free to choose to file a claim under the FRVL, the PCA, or
Military Surface Deployment and Distrib. Command, Claims Data Pull, Fiscal
Years 2014–16 (Oct. 20, 2016) (unpublished Excel document) (on file with
author) [hereinafter SDDC Data].
17. FRV Survey,
note 10, at 36.
U.S. Army Installation Mgmt. Command, Interactive Customer Evaluation Data,
Fiscal Year 2014 (Oct. 19, 2016) (unpublished Excel document) (on file with
author) [hereinafter FY14 ICE Data]; U.S. Army Installation Mgmt. Command,
Interactive Customer Evaluation Data, Fiscal Year 2015 (Oct. 19, 2016)
(unpublished Excel document) (on file with author) [hereinafter FY15 ICE
Data]; U.S. Army Installation Mgmt. Command, Interactive Customer Evaluation
Data, Fiscal Year 2016 (Oct. 19, 2016) (unpublished Excel document) (on file
with author) [hereinafter FY16 ICE Data]. The U.S. Army Installation
Management Command (IMCOM) provided all Interactive Customer Evaluation
(ICE) comments for Fiscal Years 2014, 2015, and 2016. E-mail from Mr.
Russell Matthias, Interactive Customer Evaluation Management Analyst, U.S.
Army Installation Mgmt. Command., to author (Oct. 19, 2016, 15:30 EST) (on
file with author).
note 4, § 220.127.116.11. There are some situations in which spouses, survivors, or
others can file a claim on behalf of a Soldier, but those instances are
U.S. Dep’t of Army, Pam. 27-162, Claims Procedures
para. 11-4(h)(5) (21 Mar. 2008) [hereinafter DA P
. 27-162]. Soldiers comprise the bulk of claimants, but Civilian employees
and some others can also be proper claimants.
para. 11-4(a). In this article, “Soldier”
are used interchangeably
to mean any proper claimant.
note 4, § 18.104.22.168. The U.S. Army Claims Service (USARCS) can grant
extensions for “good cause for the delay.”
note 4, para. 1.1.3.
note 4, § 1.5.4. This is the same type of reimbursement the claimant would
receive if filing under the PCA. 31 U.S.C. § 3721 (2018).
note 4, §§ 2.0, 2.13.3.
note 4, § 1.5.1.
note 19, para. 11-7(a)(1).
note 4, § 1.2.2.
U.S. Army Claims Serv., Allowance List Depreciation Guide
%24File/2007%20ALDG.pdf [hereinafter ALDG].
31 U.S.C. §§ 3701–3720(e) (2018); DA P
note 19, ch. 11.
note 4, § 2.9.1
§ 2.9.2. The withholding process is referred to as an “administrative
31 U.S.C. § 3702.
33. 10 U.S.C. § 2636a(b) (2018).
note 4, § 1.1
35. E-mail from Mr. Leland Gallup, Chief, Recovery Branch, U.S. Army Claims
Serv., to author (Dec. 1, 2016, 11:39 EST) (on file with author).
Center for Personnel Claims Support, Claims Data Pull, CPCS Stats FY17 and
(Oct. 29, 2018) (unpublished Excel document) (on file with author)
[hereinafter CPCS Data]. This document contains statistics on the number of
Army PCA claims filed for Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018, as well as the amounts
paid for those claims.
note 19, ch. 11.
note 10, at 27. The survey indicates low satisfaction rates with the FRV
program, including only nineteen percent of junior enlisted Soldiers,
forty-two percent of senior enlisted Soldiers, fifty-seven percent of
officers, and fifty-eight percent of Civilian employees.
The survey is old, but is relevant to this discussion because there have
been no intervening substantive changes to the PCA or FRVL claims rules. The
last changes to AR 27-20 and DA PAM 21-162 occurred in 2008.
note 12; DA P
note 19. The last substantive change to the FRVL was in 2000.
10 U.S.C. § 2636a(b) (2018).
40. FRV Survey,
note 10, at 27. “[Forty percent] of respondents who submitted a claim
received what they thought was a satisfactory settlement under the Full
Replacement Value Program.”
41. FRV Survey,
note 10, at 8.
See generally id.
at 27. Eighty-one percent of junior enlisted respondents were unsatisfied
with the FRVL claims process.
, FY14 ICE Data,
note 18; FY15 ICE Data,
note 18; FY16 ICE Data,
10 U.S.C. § 2636a (2018).
See, e.g., Tutorials
https://move.mil/tutorials (last visited Aug. 28, 2019). This assertion is
based on the author’s experience as the Chief, Client Services Division and
Claims Attorney for the U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence and Fort
Rucker, Alabama, from 15 October 2014 to 11 August 2016 [hereinafter
note 19, para. 11-23.
. Normally, USARCS will not pursue a claim against a TSP unless the Soldier
files a claim with the Army; without a PCA claim, TSP behavior goes mostly
51. Professional Experiences,
U.S. Dep’t of Def
Defense Transportation Regulation
pt. IV-K1-20 (May 13, 2016) [hereinafter DTR] (providing that it is the
TSP’s responsibility to “[p]repare an accurate and legible inventory”).
See, e.g., Handling PCS Claims During and After a Move
(last visited Aug. 28, 2019) (advising Soldiers to “[e]xamine preexisting
damages carefully; if the movers have exaggerated the amount of preexisting
damages, you should state your disagreement directly on the inventory. . .
note 4, § 1.3.2 (“The TSP shall not be liable for . . . pre-existing
note 4, § 2.3.
note 19, para. 11-1.b (“The Army Claims System intends that, within approved
guidelines, Soldiers and civilian employees will be compensated for such
losses to the maximum extent possible.”),
57. FRV Survey,
note 10, at 39.
59. SDDC Data,
note 10, at 36 (providing that “[r]espondents receiving payment reported
that on average, their payment covered [fifty-four percent] of their
note 35. In Fiscal Year 2017, the CPCS processed 2,631 claims, paying
In Fiscal Year 2018, the CPCS processed 1,742 claims, paying $2,520,118.
U.S. Army Center for Personnel Claims Support, U.S. Army Statistics FY 14–FY
18 (Mar. 31, 2018) (unpublished PowerPoint presentation) (on file with
author) [hereinafter CPCS Statistics]. U.S. Army Claims Service recovered
over $1.6 million in FY 14, $1.8 million in FY 15, $1.6 million in FY 16,
and $1.5 million in FY 17.
Id. See also
E-mail from Mr. Mark Edick, Operations Officer, CPCS, U.S. Army Claims
Serv., to author (Oct 31, 2018, 16:02 EST) (on file with author). And USARCS
recovered over $1 million in FY 18.
62. DA P
note 19, para. 11-23.
(providing that the “Army normally does not assert claims against carriers
until the Army has received a claim from the owner . . . ”).
63. SDDC Data,
66. SDDC Data,
note 16 (noting that $451,138,155.50 is the average for Fiscal Years 2014,
2015, and 2016).
67. Professional Experiences,
69. FRV Survey,
note 10, at 40. Only thirty-one percent of respondents who filed a claim
received payment from the TSP.
Out of 467 respondents who filed a claim with the TSP, only 185 received
Of those surveyed, only twenty-two percent of claimants receiving partial
payment submitted a claim under the PCA.
74. FRV Survey,
note 10, at 40. According to the FRV Survey, only about twenty percent of
those who sustained damage during a move received satisfactory payment under
the FRV Program.
note 4, § 2.9. In the current system, the TSP’s liability for a lost or
damaged item can be reviewed by the TSP’s adjudicator, the CPCS, the USARCS
Recovery Branch, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), and even
in a federal court.
77. Professional Experiences,
79. This is the full process under the current system: (1) file Notice of
Loss or Damage (NOLD), (2) TSP claim, (3) TSP initial written offer or
denial, (4) TSP negotiation, (5) TSP final offer or denial. (6) PCA claim,
(7) PCA adjudication and payment or denial, (8) PCA reconsideration request,
(9) PCA reconsideration action, (10) TSP recovery action, (11) TSP
negotiation, and (12) final remittance to claimant.
The Army Personal Property Program in Practice. With a direct appeal, the
process would be: (1) file NOLD, (2) TSP claim, (3) TSP written offer or
denial, (4) CPCS assistance request, (5) TSP-ordered payment or offset
action, and (6) final remittance to claimant.
Both processes would also include higher-level appeal rights to the DOHA or
a suit in federal court, but those would be relatively rare.
80. The CPCS functions as an online and call center resource. Headquarters,
Office of the Judge Advocate Gen., 39-03 TJAG Sends (13 Aug. 2015)
[hereinafter TJAG Sends]. The CPCS would be most effective in its review if
its staff had direct access to view the claims files and supporting evidence
that claimants entered into the DPS claims website. Alternatively, the
claimant could send the file and substantiation directly to the CPCS using
e-mail or the DoD SAFE (Secure Access File Exchange) large file sender.
note 4, § 2.9.1.
82. This is the current process for the Army to recover funds from the
TSP—it “offsets” against funds it owes the TSP on other shipping contracts;
the difference is that the offset is currently not accomplished until much
later in the recovery process.
note 4, § 2.9.2.
note 4, § 2.9.3;
31 U.S.C. § 3702 (2018).
84. While U.S. Transportation Command has the authority to make this change
are often promulgated after consultation with industry representatives.
U.S. Army Claims Serv., Defense Personal Property Program Claims Handbook
25 (Steven Kelly ed., 3d ed. 2014)
are incorporated by reference into individual shipping contracts, and TSPs
that choose to do business with the Army will be bound by any subsequent
Many Soldiers Do Not Fully Utilize the Army Personal Property Program.
note 16. It appears that TSPs in general have been avoiding the full extent
of the FRVL’s liability mandate, especially considering the $685 average
recovery and the fifty-five percent reimbursement rate.
87. FRV Survey,
note 10. According to the survey, only forty percent of claimants who filed
a claim with a TSP felt they were adequately reimbursed.
88. 10 U.S.C. § 2636a(a)–(b) (2018).
92. Professional Experiences,