B-176859, OCT 4, 1972
Highlights
SINCE THE DESIGNATION OF THE CLAIMANT'S HOME OF RECORD ON HIS SEPARATION ORDERS WAS WRONG. HE IS TO BE ALLOWED THE ADDITIONAL MILEAGE. THOMAS: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED JULY 20. YOU WERE HONORABLY DISCHARGED AT FT. AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED TO YOUR HOME OR PLACE FROM WHICH ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY WHICH WAS SHOWN TO BE LEMAY. WHEN YOUR CLAIM FOR TRAVEL OF YOURSELF AND DEPENDENTS WAS CONSIDERED. ALTHOUGH YOU CLAIMED YOUR HOME OF RECORD AS WELL AS THE PLACE FROM WHICH ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY WAS SANTA CRUZ. TRAVEL WAS ALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDERS OF JULY 31. WAS ERRONEOUS AND SUBSEQUENTLY. YOUR SEPARATION ORDERS WERE CHANGED TO SHOW YOUR HOME OF RECORD AS SANTA CRUZ. ORDERS WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN FURNISHED TO INDICATE THAT YOU HAD CHANGED OR CORRECTED YOUR HOME OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL PRIOR TO YOUR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY NOR WAS ANY OFFICIAL EXPLANATION GIVEN THAT YOUR HOME OF RECORD WAS ERRONEOUSLY SHOWN AS LEMAY.
B-176859, OCT 4, 1972
MILITARY PERSONNEL - SEPARATION TRAVEL - HOME OF RECORD DECISION ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF WILLIAM G. THOMAS FOR ADDITIONAL MILEAGE FOR TRAVEL INCIDENT TO HIS RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY. SINCE THE DESIGNATION OF THE CLAIMANT'S HOME OF RECORD ON HIS SEPARATION ORDERS WAS WRONG, AND SINCE HE HAS SHOWN THAT PRIOR TO SEPARATION OTHER ORDERS INDICATED HIS HOME OF RECORD TO BE AS HE CLAIMS, HE IS TO BE ALLOWED THE ADDITIONAL MILEAGE.
TO MR. WILLIAM G. THOMAS:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED JULY 20, 1972, IN WHICH YOU REQUEST A REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT OF JULY 15, 1970, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL MILEAGE FOR TRAVEL OF BOTH YOU AND YOUR DEPENDENTS INCIDENT TO YOUR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY.
THE RECORDS SHOW THAT YOU RESIGNED FROM THE ARMY AND BY PARAGRAPH 197 OF SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 146 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20315, DATED JULY 31, 1969, YOU WERE HONORABLY DISCHARGED AT FT. HAMILTON, NEW YORK, AND AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED TO YOUR HOME OR PLACE FROM WHICH ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY WHICH WAS SHOWN TO BE LEMAY, MISSOURI.
ACCORDINGLY, WHEN YOUR CLAIM FOR TRAVEL OF YOURSELF AND DEPENDENTS WAS CONSIDERED, ALTHOUGH YOU CLAIMED YOUR HOME OF RECORD AS WELL AS THE PLACE FROM WHICH ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY WAS SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA, AND YOU ACTUALLY DID TRAVEL TO SANTA CRUZ, TRAVEL WAS ALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDERS OF JULY 31, 1969, ONLY TO LEMAY, MISSOURI.
YOU CLAIMED THE DESIGNATION OF LEMAY, MISSOURI, WAS ERRONEOUS AND SUBSEQUENTLY, BY PARAGRAPH 191, SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 53, DATED MARCH 18, 1970, YOUR SEPARATION ORDERS WERE CHANGED TO SHOW YOUR HOME OF RECORD AS SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA.
YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL TRAVEL ALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT OF THE JULY 31, 1969, ORDERS WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN FURNISHED TO INDICATE THAT YOU HAD CHANGED OR CORRECTED YOUR HOME OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL PRIOR TO YOUR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY NOR WAS ANY OFFICIAL EXPLANATION GIVEN THAT YOUR HOME OF RECORD WAS ERRONEOUSLY SHOWN AS LEMAY, MISSOURI, IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER.
YOU HAVE NOW FURNISHED THIS OFFICE A COPY OF LETTER ORDER A-10-3863, HEADQUARTERS, FIRST UNITED STATES ARMY, FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND, 20755, DATED OCTOBER 27, 1967, WHICH ORDERED YOU TO ACTIVE DUTY. THIS ORDER SHOWS YOUR HOME OF RECORD TO BE: "330 CHESTNUT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA 95060."
IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE YOU HAVE NOW FURNISHED THIS OFFICE, IT APPEARS THAT YOUR HOME OF RECORD WAS IN FACT SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA, AND YOU AND YOUR DEPENDENTS WERE ENTITLED TO TRAVEL ALLOWANCE TO THAT POINT.
ACCORDINGLY, OUR TRANSPORTATION AND CLAIMS DIVISION IS BEING INSTRUCTED TO ISSUE A SETTLEMENT FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TRAVEL ALLOWANCE FOR YOU AND YOUR DEPENDENTS PAID YOU AND THE TRAVEL ALLOWANCE DUE FROM FT. HAMILTON, NEW YORK, TO SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA.