B-135292, AUG. 7, 1958

B-135292, AUG. 7, 1958

TO DR. DAVID P. WEHRLE, C/O GERALD A. MCNELIS, JR., ATTORNEY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER OF JUNE 10, 1958, FROM GERALD A. MCNELIS, JR., ATTORNEY AT LAW, WRITTEN IN YOUR BEHALF, REQUESTING FURTHER REVIEW OF YOUR INDEBTEDNESS TO THE UNITED STATES IN THE SUM OF $271.80. THE INDEBTEDNESS REPRESENTS THE EXCESS MILEAGE PAYMENTS YOU RECEIVED FOR YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL DURING APRIL 1952 FROM ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, TO PITTSBURG, CALIFORNIA, AND FROM OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, TO ALTOONA, PENNSYLVANIA, DURING JULY 1953.

THIS INDEBTEDNESS WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DECISION TO YOU DATED APRIL 17, 1958, B-135292. IN THAT DECISION WE POINTED OUT THE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE MATTER AND THE REASONS WHY YOU ARE INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES FOR OVERPAYMENTS TO YOU FOR YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL. THE PRESENT LETTER OF MR. MCNELIS STATES IN SUBSTANCE THAT THE TRAVEL OF YOUR WIFE FOR WHICH YOU RECEIVED PAYMENT WAS PERFORMED INCIDENT TO PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS. ON SUCH BASIS HE URGES THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM AGAINST YOU IS NOT VALID.

PARAGRAPH 7000-9, JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, IN EFFECT AT THE TIME HERE INVOLVED, SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE UPON A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION "WHEN DEPENDENT IS A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES ON ACTIVE DUTY ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDERS.' ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDERS OF APRIL 15 AND MAY 7, 1952, ASSIGNING YOU TO DUTY OVERSEAS, YOUR WIFE WAS A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES ON ACTIVE DUTY. HENCE, YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENT OF $130.56 RECEIVED BY YOU FOR HER TRAVEL FROM ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, TO PITTSBURG, CALIFORNIA, IN APRIL 1952.

SECTION 303 (C) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, 63 STAT. 814, AND CHAPTER 7 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT TO THAT SECTION, AUTHORIZE THE TRANSPORTATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE OF DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES WHEN ORDERED TO MAKE A CHANGE OF PERMANENT STATION, INCLUDING THE CHANGE FROM LAST STATION TO HOME. RIGHT TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT AN ALLOWANCE PAYABLE IN ALL EVENTS ON THE BASIS THAT SOME TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED. EVEN THOUGH TRAVEL IS PERFORMED, NO RIGHT TO REIMBURSEMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT ARISES UNLESS THE TRAVEL MAY BE CONSIDERED AS INCIDENT TO A CHANGE OF RESIDENCE RESULTING FROM AN ORDERED PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FOR THE MEMBER IN THE SERVICE. IT CONSISTENTLY HAS BEEN HELD (33 COMP. GEN. 431 AND CASES THERE CITED) THAT THE EXPENSE OF TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS MERELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISITING THE MEMBER, FOR PLEASURE TRIPS, OR FOR OTHER PURPOSES NOT CONTEMPLATING A CHANGE OF THE DEPENDENT'S RESIDENCE IN CONNECTION WITH A CHANGE OF THE MEMBER'S PERMANENT STATION IS NOT AN OBLIGATION OF THE GOVERNMENT.

AS POINTED OUT IN OUR PRIOR DECISION, YOUR ORDERS OF MAY 29, 1953, DID NOT DIRECT YOU TO REPORT AT PARKS AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA, FOR PERMANENT DUTY BUT ONLY FOR PROCESSING FOR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY. SUCH ORDERS INITIATED A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FOR YOU FROM OVERSEAS TO YOUR HOME WHICH WAS COMPLETED BY THE ORDERS OF JULY 16, 1953, DIRECTING YOUR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOU ARRIVED AT PARKS AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA, ON JULY 8, 1953, FOR PROCESSING IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY. YOU SAY THAT YOUR WIFE ARRIVED IN OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, ON JULY 12, 1953, AND THAT SHE TRAVELED FROM OAKLAND TO ALTOONA, PENNSYLVANIA, BETWEEN JULY 21 AND 29, 1953. THIS TRAVEL OF YOUR WIFE MUST BE REGARDED AS TRAVEL OTHER THAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHANGING RESIDENCE INCIDENT TO YOUR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY ORDERS. HENCE, UNDER THE LAW AND REGULATIONS, NO REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUCH TRAVEL IS AUTHORIZED AND WE HAVE NO CHOICE OTHER THAN TO AFFIRM OUR PRIOR DECISION IN THE MATTER. YOU SHOULD REFUND THE AMOUNT OF YOUR INDEBTEDNESS AS REQUESTED IN THAT DECISION.