B-142506, MAY 16, 1960

B-142506, MAY 16, 1960

TO MR. V. GAVIN, DISBURSING OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY:

THERE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY 4TH INDORSEMENT DATED APRIL 4, 1960, YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 1, 1960 (05.7 SER C-268) REQUESTING ADVANCE DECISION AS TO WHETHER PAYMENT IS AUTHORIZED ON VOUCHER TRANSMITTED THEREWITH IN FAVOR OF LIEUTENANT HERBERT L. SCHNELL, JR., USN, FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS AND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE. THE REQUEST HAS BEEN ASSIGNED CONTROL NO. 60-14 BY THE PER DIEM, TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE COMMITTEE.

IT APPEARS THAT THE OFFICER WAS A CAPTAIN, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS RESERVE, ON DUTY AT MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, EL TORO, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, AND THAT HE REQUESTED AN INTERSERVICE TRANSFER FROM MARINE CORPS TO THE UNITED STATES NAVAL RESERVE. AS THE RESULT, BY LETTER DATED AUGUST 21, 1959, THE CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL TENDERED HIM AN APPOINTMENT AS A RESERVE OFFICER IN THE LINE OF THE U.S. NAVY; ADVISED HIM THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY HAD ACCEPTED HIS RESIGNATION AS A MARINE CORPS OFFICER TO BE EFFECTIVE THE DATE PRECEDING THAT ON WHICH HIS APPOINTMENT WOULD BE EXECUTED, AND THAT HE WOULD BE PLACED ON IMMEDIATE ACTIVE DUTY. BY CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL ORDERS DATED SEPTEMBER 1, 1959, UPON ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS LIEUTENANT (JG) IN THE U.S. NAVAL RESERVE, THE MEMBER WAS ORDERED TO ACTIVE NAVAL SERVICE AND DIRECTED TO PROCEED TO THE NAVAL AIR STATION, MIRAMAR, CALIFORNIA, FOR DUTY. IT IS SHOWN THAT CAPTAIN SCHNELL, USMCR, WAS SEPARATED FROM THE U.S. MARINE CORPS ON SEPTEMBER 29, 1959; THAT HE ACCEPTED HIS APPOINTMENT AS LIEUTENANT (JG) (PERMANENT) AND LIEUTENANT (TEMPORARY) U.S. NAVAL RESERVE, ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1959, AND THAT THE ORDERS TO ACTIVE DUTY WERE DELIVERED TO HIM ON THE SAME DATE. AT THAT TIME, HIS DEPENDENTS (WIFE AND TWO CHILDREN UNDER FIVE YEARS OF AGE) WERE LOCATED AT SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA. THEY TRAVELED FROM SANTA ANA TO SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, ON OCTOBER 3 TO 4, 1959, INCIDENT TO HIS ORDERS TO ACTIVE DUTY.

YOUR DOUBT AS TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL OF THE DEPENDENTS ARISES FROM THE FACT THAT PARAGRAPH 7052 OF NAVY TRAVEL INSTRUCTIONS DOES NOT AUTHORIZE REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS WHEN THE MEMBER IS ORDERED TO MAKE A CHANGE OF STATION FOR HIS OWN CONVENIENCE AND THAT BY 1ST INDORSEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 18, 1959 (ON BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL LETTER OF AUGUST 21, 1959) THE COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS ADVISED THE MEMBER THAT HIS RESIGNATION WAS BEING ACCEPTED FOR HIS "OWN CONVENIENCE" AND TRANSFER TO THE U.S. NAVAL RESERVE. AS TO THE DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE, YOU QUESTION WHETHER PARAGRAPH 9003-3 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS IS FOR APPLICATION.

SECTION 303 (C) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, AS AMENDED, 37 U.S.C. 253 (C), AUTHORIZES PAYMENT OF A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE, UNDER REGULATIONS APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY CONCERNED, TO A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES WHOSE DEPENDENTS ARE AUTHORIZED TO MOVE AND ACTUALLY MOVE IN CONNECTION WITH HIS PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION, BUT PROVIDES FURTHER THAT A MEMBER IS NOT ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE WHEN ORDERED FROM HOME TO FIRST DUTY STATION OR FROM LAST STATION TO HOME. PARAGRAPH 9003-3 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT SUCH ALLOWANCE WILL NOT BE PAYABLE IN CONNECTION WITH PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION TRAVEL PERFORMED FROM HOME "OR THE PLACE FROM WHICH ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY TO FIRST PERMANENT DUTY STATION UPON APPOINTMENT, CALL TO ACTIVE DUTY, ENLISTMENT, REENLISTMENT OR INDUCTION.' PARAGRAPH 7011-4 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT A MEMBER WHO IS SEPARATED FROM THE SERVICE OR RELIEVED FROM ACTIVE DUTY FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF CONTINUING ON ACTIVE DUTY (OTHER THAN EXPIRATION OF ENLISTMENT OR PRESCRIBED TERM OF SERVICE) IN THE SAME OR ANOTHER STATUS IS NOT ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH SEPARATION AND CONTINUATION. IT FURTHER PROVIDES, HOWEVER, THAT THIS PROHIBITION WILL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS DENYING TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS WHEN A MEMBER IS TRANSFERRED ON A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH REENTRY INTO OR CONTINUATION IN THE SERVICE.

IN THE PRESENT CASE, WHILE THE MEMBER INITIATED THE ACTION AFFECTING HIS TRANSFER FROM THE MARINE CORPS TO THE NAVY, THE RESULTANT CHANGE OF STATION WAS NOT A PERMISSIVE ONE BUT WAS ONE DIRECTED BY THE NAVY FOR ITS CONVENIENCE. SCHNELL'S SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES WAS TERMINATED UPON ACCEPTANCE OF HIS RESIGNATION FROM THE MARINE CORPS. THUS, THE TRAVEL OF HIS DEPENDENTS WAS FROM THE PLACE FROM WHICH HE WAS ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY TO HIS FIRST PERMANENT DUTY STATION INCIDENT TO HIS NEW APPOINTMENT, A MOVE FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS IS AUTHORIZED, BUT FOR WHICH PAYMENT OF THE DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE CLEARLY IS PROHIBITED. SEE 39 COMP. GEN. 74. COMPARE B-130003, DATED JANUARY 14, 1957.

ACCORDINGLY, THE VOUCHER AND SUPPORTING PAPERS ARE RETURNED HEREWITH, PAYMENT BEING AUTHORIZED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED ABOVE.