BNUMBER:  B-260695
DATE:  September 29, 1995
TITLE:  Allied Freight Forwarding, Inc.

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Allied Freight Forwarding, Inc.

File:     B-260695

Date:     September 29, 1995

DIGEST

A prima facie case of carrier liability for the loss of a 
non-inventoried item of a service member's household property exists 
when tender of the item to the carrier is shown by the following:  the 
service member expressed his intent to ship the item on an Inventory 
of Household Goods (DD Form 1701) executed shortly before the move; 
the member wrote his own statement indicating that he held possession 
of the VCR until shipment, that the carrier obtained possession of all 
of the property in his quarters, and the carrier prepared the 
inventory.

DECISION

Allied Freight Forwarding, Inc. requests that we review our settlement 
affirming the Army's set off of $252 for the transit loss of a 
Goldstar VCR in a service member's household shipment.[1]  The only 
issue is whether the service member offered sufficient evidence of his 
tender of the VCR to Allied to establish a prima facie case of transit 
loss.  In our view, there is sufficient evidence of tender of the VCR, 
and we affirm the prior settlements.

The record indicates, among other things, that the service member, a 
Specialist (E-4), tendered his household goods to Allied on August 24, 
1989, and that Allied and the service member signed a Descriptive 
Inventory on that date.  The inventory did not list the VCR, and 
Allied did not deliver the VCR when it delivered other household goods 
to the service member on October 14, 1989.  However, the record 
contains the service member's Inventory of Household Goods (DD Form 
1701), which he completed on July 28, 1989, and in which he indicated 
that he intended to ship a Goldstar VCR that he purchased in 1986.  
The record also contains a statement in the service member's own 
handwriting suggesting that Allied's representative packed all of the 
goods at origin and assigned the inventory numbers.  The note conveys 
his belief that the VCR did not have its own inventory number because 
the carrier placed the VCR along with other items in a numbered 
carton.

Allied contends that the DD Form 1701 is not intended to establish 
proof of tender, and that the service member could have sold the VCR 
prior to the move.  The carrier suggests that the service member was 
responsible for his own failure to list the VCR on the descriptive 
inventory and to assure its accuracy.  The carrier argues that this 
was a small shipment with only 83 line items and that if the member 
had tendered the VCR, the failure to list it on the inventory would 
have been apparent.

To hold a carrier liable for the loss of a household item, the shipper 
must establish a prima facie case of carrier liability; the first 
element of such a case is proof that the shipper tendered the lost 
property to the carrier.  The burden then shifts to the carrier to 
prove that it was not liable for the loss.  Cartwright Van Lines, 
B-241850.2, Oct. 21, 1991.

When an item is not listed on the inventory, the shipper must present 
at least some substantive evidence of his tender of the item to the 
carrier beyond his claim and the acknowledgement on it of the 
penalties for filing a false claim.  See Department of the Army, 
B-205084, June 8, 1993.  The service member must provide a statement 
reflecting personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the 
tender of the item to the carrier or other substantive evidence to 
support the tender.  See Aalmode Transportation Corp., B-240350, Dec. 
18, 1990.

The record contains sufficient evidence to support the tender of the 
VCR.  The service member's written statement indicates that the member 
still had the VCR in his possession until the time of shipment, that 
Allied obtained possession of all of his property, and that Allied 
prepared the inventory.  Additionally, the service member completed 
the DD Form 1701 close to the time of shipment, which evidences the 
service member's intent to ship the particular VCR that was lost, and 
more importantly, the member did not complete it in anticipation of 
filing a claim.  In these circumstances, we believe that it deserves 
some weight in deciding whether there was tender.  With regard to 
carrier preparation of the inventory, we have held that the service 
member is not bound by the carrier's inventory decisions.  Cartwright 
Van Lines, B-241850.2, supra.  In sum, we believe that while 
separately neither the member's statement nor the execution of DD Form 
1701 are not conclusive, when viewed together, they support the 
position that there was tender of the VCR.  See discussion in Aalmode 
Transportation Corp., B-240350, supra.

We affirm the prior settlements.

/s/Seymour Efros
for Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel

1. The shipment moved under personal property government bill of 
lading RP-568,634 involving Lowell E. Gillespie.