B-127316, MAY 23, 1956
Highlights
THERE WAS RECEIVED YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 8. YOUR CLAIM WAS MADE ON THE BASIS THAT YOU WERE AN ENLISTED MEMBER WITH DEPENDENTS STATIONED AT CAMP TORTUGUERO. REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE PAYMENT OF STATION PER DIEM ALLOWANCES ARE CONTAINED IN THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS. THE TERM "MEMBER WITH DEPENDENTS" IS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH 4301-2 OF THE REGULATIONS AS BEING A MEMBER WHOSE DEPENDENTS "RESIDE WITH HIM AT OR IN THE VICINITY OF HIS FOREIGN DUTY TION.'. WHERE YOUR DEPENDENTS LIVED DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION AND WHICH YOU STATE IS LOCATED 28 MILES AWAY. EVEN IF YOU WERE LIVING AT SAN LORENZO WITH YOUR DEPENDENTS AND COMMUTING FROM THERE DAILY TO CAMP TORTUGUERO SO THAT THEY MIGHT BE CONSIDERED AS LIVING WITH YOU AS A PART OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD.
B-127316, MAY 23, 1956
TO JUAN DEL PILAR-PEREZ, SFC, U.S. ARMY:
BY REFERENCE FROM HEADQUARTERS, 94TH AAA BN, APO 185, U.S. ARMY, THERE WAS RECEIVED YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 8, 1956, REQUESTING REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 28, 1955, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR STATION PER DIEM SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 1951, TO JANUARY 31, 1952, INCIDENT TO YOUR SERVICE AS AN ENLISTED MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY. YOUR CLAIM WAS MADE ON THE BASIS THAT YOU WERE AN ENLISTED MEMBER WITH DEPENDENTS STATIONED AT CAMP TORTUGUERO, PUERTO RICO, DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION.
REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE PAYMENT OF STATION PER DIEM ALLOWANCES ARE CONTAINED IN THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS. FOR PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHING A RIGHT TO THOSE ALLOWANCES ON THE BASIS CLAIMED, THE TERM "MEMBER WITH DEPENDENTS" IS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH 4301-2 OF THE REGULATIONS AS BEING A MEMBER WHOSE DEPENDENTS "RESIDE WITH HIM AT OR IN THE VICINITY OF HIS FOREIGN DUTY TION.' SUCH PROVISION CONTEMPLATES THE SITUATION WHERE THE DEPENDENTS ACTUALLY LIVE WITH THE MEMBER AS A PART OF HIS HOUSEHOLD AT A RESIDENCE LOCATED WITHIN THE PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES OF HIS DUTY STATION OR IN THE NEARBY ADJOINING LOCALITY. THE AREA CONSIDERED TO BE IN THE VICINITY OF CAMP TORTUGUERO UNDER THE REGULATIONS COULD NOT REASONABLE BE EXTENDED TO INCLUDE SAN LORENZO, PUERTO RICO, WHERE YOUR DEPENDENTS LIVED DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION AND WHICH YOU STATE IS LOCATED 28 MILES AWAY. CONSEQUENTLY, EVEN IF YOU WERE LIVING AT SAN LORENZO WITH YOUR DEPENDENTS AND COMMUTING FROM THERE DAILY TO CAMP TORTUGUERO SO THAT THEY MIGHT BE CONSIDERED AS LIVING WITH YOU AS A PART OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD, THERE WOULD BE NO AUTHORITY UNDER THE REGULATIONS FOR THE PAYMENT OF YOUR CLAIM FOR THE REASON THAT THEY DID NOT RESIDE AT OR IN THE VICINITY OF YOUR DUTY STATION.
IT HAS BEEN NOTED THAT WHILE YOU STATED,"DURING THE TIME 1 APRIL 1951 TO 31 JANUARY 1952, MY DEPENDENTS ACTUALLY RESIDED WITH ME NEAR MY DUTY STATION IN PUERTO RICO," YOUR PAY RECORD INDICATES THAT FOR A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE PERIOD COVERED BY YOUR CLAIM YOU WERE ABSENT FROM PUERTO RICO IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY IN THE CANAL ZONE AND SO COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RESIDING WITH YOUR DEPENDENTS IN PUERTO RICO DURING SUCH ABSENCE.
ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE-INDICATED CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE EXISTS NO PROPER BASIS UPON WHICH YOUR CLAIM MAY BE ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF NOVEMBER 28, 1955, IS SUSTAINED.