B-145711, AUG. 22, 1961

B-145711, AUG. 22, 1961

TO MR. ROBERT O. YEASTING:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 12, 1961, FURTHER PROTESTING YOUR INDEBTEDNESS OF $78.24 DUE THE UNITED STATES BY REASON OF AN ERRONEOUS PAYMENT FOR TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENT (WIFE) WHILE YOU WERE SERVING AS LIEUTENANT (JG), UNITED STATES NAVAL RESERVE.

THIS INDEBTEDNESS WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DECISION TO YOU DATED JUNE 27,1961, B-145711. IN THAT DECISION WE CITED THE LAW AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE MATTER AND THE REASONS WHY YOU ARE INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES FOR THE ERRONEOUS PAYMENT OF THE TRAVEL ALLOWANCE. YOUR PRESENT CONTENTIONS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE PRESENTED IN PRIOR LETTERS PROTESTING THE REQUESTS FOR REFUND OF THE AMOUNT DUE. YOU AGAIN STATE THAT WHEN ORDERED TO THE COMMANDER SERVICE SQUADRON SIX YOU SENT A MESSAGE TO THE APPROPRIATE OVERSEAS COMMAND ASKING WHETHER YOUR DEPENDENT COULD TRAVEL WITH YOU. IN REPLY, YOU SAY THAT A MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED "STATING THAT CONCURRENT TRAVEL WAS NOT AUTHORIZED.'

AS YOU WERE ADVISED IN OUR DECISION OF JUNE 27, 1961, PARAGRAPH 7008 2, NAVAL TRAVEL INSTRUCTIONS, PROVIDED THAT, EXCEPT FOR THOSE AREAS OVERSEAS WHERE REGULATIONS WERE IN EFFECT PROHIBITING CONCURRENT TRAVEL OF THE MEMBER AND HIS DEPENDENTS, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR A MEMBER UNDER ORDERS TO AN OVERSEAS STATION TO SUBMIT A REQUEST TO THE APPROPRIATE AREA COMMANDER FOR APPROVAL OF DEPENDENTS' ENTRY AND RECEIVE A NEGATIVE REPLY PRIOR TO SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION OR A CLAIM FOR DEPENDENTS' TRAVEL TO A DESIGNATED PLACE. WHILE THE REPLY WHICH YOU SAY YOU RECEIVED FROM THE OVERSEAS COMMAND DENIED CONCURRENT TRAVEL, IT DID NOT DENY ENTRY OF YOUR DEPENDENT TO YOUR OVERSEAS STATION. HENCE, UNDER THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATIONS SUCH MESSAGE CONSTITUTED NO BASIS FOR THE MOVEMENT OF YOUR DEPENDENT TO A DESIGNATED LOCATION IN THE UNITED STATES (SEATTLE) AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE. INSOFAR AS THE RECORD SHOWS, THERE WAS NO DENIAL OF ENTRY OF YOUR DEPENDENT TO YOUR OVERSEAS STATION AND SHE WAS FURNISHED TRANSPORTATION TO SUCH STATION SHORTLY AFTER YOUR TRANSFER. THEREFORE THE DENIAL OF CONCURRENT TRAVEL (WHICH, IN ANY EVENT, YOU SAY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOUR WIFE TO HAVE PERFORMED) AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR REMOVAL OF THE DEBT CHARGE ARISING FROM THE UNAUTHORIZED TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENT.

ACCORDINGLY, THE DECISION OF JUNE 27, 1961, IS AFFIRMED AND YOU SHOULD REFUND THE AMOUNT OF YOUR INDEBTEDNESS AS REQUESTED IN THAT DECISION.