B-125517, DEC. 27, 1955
Highlights
MARCROFT: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 3. WERE TAKEN FROM THE INFORMATION DISCLOSED IN YOUR CLAIM PAPERS AND FROM THE QUOTED REPORT OF HEADQUARTERS. OUR CONCLUSION WAS BASED ON THAT INFORMATION. WHILE YOU INDICATE THAT THE DECISION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRUE FACTS. OUR DECISION WAS TO THE EFFECT THAT. WHILE VERBAL ORDERS HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED AS COMPETENT ORDERS FOR TRAVEL WHEN THEY ARE PROPERLY CONFIRMED IN WRITING WITHIN A COMPARATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. THE CONFIRMATORY ORDERS WERE ISSUED MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE PURPORTED VERBAL ORDERS. THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT EMERGENCY CONDITIONS EXISTED. THE CONFIRMED ORDERS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT TRAVEL PAYMENTS.
B-125517, DEC. 27, 1955
TO MR. HAROLD L. MARCROFT:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 3, 1955, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION TO YOU DATED NOVEMBER 30, 1955, WHICH SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR TRAVEL AND PER DIEM ALLOWANCES WHILE ON TEMPORARY DUTY DURING THE PERIOD OCTOBER 11 TO 16, 1952, AS A MAJOR, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE.
THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN OUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 30, 1955, WERE TAKEN FROM THE INFORMATION DISCLOSED IN YOUR CLAIM PAPERS AND FROM THE QUOTED REPORT OF HEADQUARTERS, 26TH AIR DIVISION, ROSLYN, NEW YORK, AND OUR CONCLUSION WAS BASED ON THAT INFORMATION. WHILE YOU INDICATE THAT THE DECISION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRUE FACTS, YOUR LETTER CONTAINS NO RELEVANT FACTS NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED.
OUR DECISION WAS TO THE EFFECT THAT, WHILE VERBAL ORDERS HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED AS COMPETENT ORDERS FOR TRAVEL WHEN THEY ARE PROPERLY CONFIRMED IN WRITING WITHIN A COMPARATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, WHERE, AS HERE, THE CONFIRMATORY ORDERS WERE ISSUED MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE PURPORTED VERBAL ORDERS, AND THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT EMERGENCY CONDITIONS EXISTED, THE CONFIRMED ORDERS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT TRAVEL PAYMENTS. WHILE IT IS NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO JUSTIFY THAT EMERGENCY CONDITIONS EXISTED AT THE TIME THE VERBAL ORDERS OF OCTOBER 4, 1952, WERE ISSUED, IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ESTABLISH THE VALIDITY OF YOUR CLAIM BY FURNISHINGA DETERMINATION BY THE ISSUING AUTHORITY, OR OTHER EVIDENCE, SHOWING THAT EMERGENCY CONDITIONS ACTUALLY EXISTED IN YOUR CASES AT THAT TIME. IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT IN YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 3, 1955, THAT "THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 7, 1952 THRU OCTOBER 11, 1952 WAS SPENT IN CANCELLING A PREVIOUSLY ARRANGED ITINERARY FOR GROUND OBSERVER WORK AND IN ARRANGING TO DISPOSE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY HELD BY ME IN CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA," THERE IS DOUBT THAT THE ISSUING AUTHORITY COULD NOW SAY THAT EMERGENCY CONDITIONS EXISTED ON OCTOBER 4, 1952, THE DATE THE VERBAL ORDERS WERE ISSUED. MOREOVER, EVEN IF IT WERE ESTABLISHED THAT THERE WAS SOME NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ISSUING AUTHORITY AT THE 26TH AIR DIVISION, ROSLYN, NEW YORK, IN THAT VERBAL ORDERS WERE NOT CONFIRMED IN WRITING WITHIN A COMPARATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, THAT FACT WOULD AFFORD NO PROPER BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM.
ACCORDINGLY, THE RECORD BEFORE US AT THIS TIME DOES NOT WARRANT ANY MODIFICATION OF THE PRIOR ACTION IN THE MATTER.