B-141260, JUL. 14, 1960

B-141260, JUL. 14, 1960

TO MR. IRVING GOZONSKY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED JUNE 8, 1960, CONCERNING YOUR INDEBTEDNESS TO THE UNITED STATES IN THE SUM OF $47.85 ARISING FROM YOUR SERVICE IN THE ARMY. THE INDEBTEDNESS REPRESENTS ERRONEOUS PER DIEM PAYMENTS MADE TO YOU AT FORT LEE, VIRGINIA, AFTER JANUARY 28, 1955, THE APPARENT DATE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ORDERS OF JANUARY 26, 1955, WHICH MADE FORT LEE, VIRGINIA, YOUR PERMANENT DUTY STATION.

OUR DEFENSE ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING DIVISION TOOK EXCEPTION TO THE PAYMENTS ON THE BASIS OF DECISION DATED JUNE 8, 1955, B-122508. THE FACTS OF THE MATTER AND THE REASONS FOR YOUR INDEBTEDNESS WERE STATED IN A LETTER TO YOU FROM THE CHIEF OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 1958. THE MATTER WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IN A LETTER TO YOU DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 1959. UPON YOUR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION WE CAREFULLY REVIEWED THE FACTS AND THE LAW INVOLVED IN THE CASE AND IN DECISION TO YOU, B-141260, DATED DECEMBER 30, 1959, WE SUSTAINED THE ACTION OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION. YOUR PRESENT LETTER DOES NOT FURNISH ANY INFORMATION NOT CONSIDERED BY US IN REACHING THE DECISION OF DECEMBER 30, 1959. HOWEVER, YOU OFFER TO SEND US $10 IN FULL SETTLEMENT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS IN ORDER TO BRING THE MATTER TO A CLOSE. APPARENTLY YOU BELIEVE THIS IS A FAIR SETTLEMENT BECAUSE YOU CONSIDER THAT YOUR LEGAL LIABILITY FOR THE INDEBTEDNESS IS DOUBTFUL. IT APPEARS TO BE YOUR VIEW THAT THE PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS OF JANUARY 26, 1955, ASSIGNING YOU TO DUTY AT FORT LEE, VIRGINIA, DID NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT YOUR PERMANENT STATION WOULD BE AT THAT PLACE, SINCE THE ORGANIZATION TO WHICH YOU WERE ASSIGNED ALSO OPERATED AT OTHER LOCATIONS SUCH AS THE FOOD AND CONTAINER INSTITUTE IN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

IF, AS ALLEGED, THE 9135TH TUQM TRAINING COMMAND TO WHICH YOU WERE PERMANENTLY ASSIGNED, CONSISTED OF DIFFERENT UNITS SOME OF WHICH WERE STATIONED AT PLACES OTHER THAN FORT LEE, THAT CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD BE WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE MATTER HERE INVOLVED, SINCE OUR INFORMATION SHOWS THAT THE ORDERS OF JANUARY 26, 1955, ASSIGNED YOU TO DUTY AT FORT LEE, VIRGINIA. SUCH ORDER CONSTITUTED ASSIGNMENT TO DUTY AT FORT LEE, VIRGINIA, AND THAT PLACE BECAME YOUR PERMANENT DUTY STATION UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH ORDERS. ALSO, YOU CONTEND THAT YOUR ORDERS ASSIGNING YOU TO FORT LEE, VIRGINIA, SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED CONTROLLING BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN ISSUED ERRONEOUSLY, WITH THE RESULT THAT YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED PER DIEM WHICH YOU OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED. IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT, WHERE TRAVEL ORDERS ARE INCOMPLETE OR AMBIGUOUS OR WHERE A PROVISION WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO BE INCLUDED IN TRAVEL ORDERS WAS OMITTED THROUGH ERROR OR INADVERTENCE IN PREPARING SUCH ORDERS, THE ORDERS MAY BE CORRECTED OR COMPLETED TO SHOW THE ORIGINAL INTENT. SEE 24 COMP. GEN. 439. HENCE, IF IT HAD BEEN INTENDED TO ASSIGN YOU TO DUTY AT SOME PLACE OTHER THAN FORT LEE, AND FORT LEE WAS ERRONEOUSLY STATED IN YOUR ORDERS, AMENDING ORDERS SHOWING THE ORIGINAL ADMINISTRATIVE INTENT COULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED WHICH WOULD HAVE SERVED TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT TO YOU OF ANY PER DIEM ALLOWANCES TO WHICH YOU MIGHT HAVE BECOME ENTITLED. HOWEVER, NO SUCH ERROR OCCURRED IN YOUR CASE. YOUR ORDERS OF JANUARY 26, 1955, AS ORIGINALLY ISSUED, CONTAIN THE PROVISIONS THE ORDER ISSUING AUTHORITY INTENDED TO INCLUDE IN YOUR ORDERS WITH RESPECT TO YOUR PERMANENT DUTY ASSIGNMENT, FORT LEE, VIRGINIA.

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SUM OF $47.85 PAID TO YOU AS PER DIEM AFTER FORT LEE BECAME YOUR PERMANENT DUTY STATION, WAS NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE LAW. SINCE YOU ARE LEGALLY LIABLE TO MAKE RESTITUTION TO THE UNITED STATES FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE ERRONEOUS PAYMENT, YOUR OFFER TO PAY $10 IN FULL SETTLEMENT OF YOUR DEBT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. YOU ARE AGAIN REQUESTED TO SEND A CHECK OR MONEY ORDER IN THE SUM OF $47.85 PAYABLE TO THE "U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE" AND ADDRESSED TO THE U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, BOX 2610, WASHINGTON 13, D.C. ..END :