Skip to main content

B-147914, SEP. 1, 1967

B-147914 Sep 01, 1967
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

TRANSPORTATION - DEPENDENTS - MILITARY PERSONNEL - ELIGIBILITY OF MEMBER DECISION CONCERNING CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF WIFE TO OVERSEAS STATION WHEN CLAIMANT WAS IN ARMY. FORMER ARMY ENLISTED MEMBER WHOSE CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR WIFE'S TRANSPORTATION WAS DISALLOWED BECAUSE MEMBER WAS NOT IN ELIGIBLE GRADE AT TIME OF ORDER TO OVERSEAS STATION FOR ENTITLEMENT TO DEPENDENT TRANSPORTATION MAY NOT HAVE CLAIM ALLOWED AND FACT THAT CLAIMANT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY PROMOTED TO ELIGIBLE GRADE DOES NOT PROVIDE BASIS FOR ENTITLEMENT TO DEPENDENT TRANSPORTATION SINCE NO PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION WAS INVOLVED AFTER PROMOTION. PELKA: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 7. INCIDENT TO YOUR SERVICE IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY WHICH CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION DATED AUGUST 25.

View Decision

B-147914, SEP. 1, 1967

TRANSPORTATION - DEPENDENTS - MILITARY PERSONNEL - ELIGIBILITY OF MEMBER DECISION CONCERNING CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF WIFE TO OVERSEAS STATION WHEN CLAIMANT WAS IN ARMY. FORMER ARMY ENLISTED MEMBER WHOSE CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR WIFE'S TRANSPORTATION WAS DISALLOWED BECAUSE MEMBER WAS NOT IN ELIGIBLE GRADE AT TIME OF ORDER TO OVERSEAS STATION FOR ENTITLEMENT TO DEPENDENT TRANSPORTATION MAY NOT HAVE CLAIM ALLOWED AND FACT THAT CLAIMANT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY PROMOTED TO ELIGIBLE GRADE DOES NOT PROVIDE BASIS FOR ENTITLEMENT TO DEPENDENT TRANSPORTATION SINCE NO PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION WAS INVOLVED AFTER PROMOTION.

TO MR. JOHN H. PELKA:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 7, 1967, CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL FROM FAIRMONT, WEST VIRGINIA, TO LEGHORN, ITALY, APRIL 1 TO 4, 1952, INCIDENT TO YOUR SERVICE IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY WHICH CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION DATED AUGUST 25, 1955. THE MATTER WAS RECONSIDERED IN OUR DECISION OF JANUARY 30, 1962, B-147914, TO YOU. ALSO WE HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER DATED AUGUST 14, 1967, FROM REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES A. VANIK, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM.

YOU WERE ADVISED IN THE DECISION OF JANUARY 30, 1962, THAT THE RECORD INDICATES YOU WERE MARRIED IN JULY 1951; THAT IN THE SAME MONTH YOU WERE TRANSFERRED FROM THE UNITED STATES TO DUTY OVERSEAS UNDER ORDERS WHICH WERE ISSUED TO YOU AS A CORPORAL (E-4) WITH FOUR YEARS' SERVICE; AND THAT YOU WERE PROMOTED TO SERGEANT (E-5) BY PARAGRAPH 3, SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 24, DATED JANUARY 31, 1952, WHILE SERVING OVERSEAS.

SECTION 406 OF TITLE 37, U.S.C. (FORMERLY SECTION 303 (C) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, AS AMENDED, 37 U.S.C. 253 (C) (, PROVIDES THAT A MEMBER OF A UNIFORMED SERVICE WHO IS ORDERED TO MAKE A CHANGE OF PERMANENT STATION IS ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION FOR HIS DEPENDENTS SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARIES CONCERNED. PARAGRAPH M7000-1 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, IN EFFECT DURING THE PERIOD INVOLVED, PROVIDED THAT TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS WAS NOT AUTHORIZED FOR ENLISTED MEMBERS IN PAY GRADES E-4 WITH LESS THAN SEVEN YEARS' SERVICE, E-3, E-2 AND E 1. YOU WERE ADVISED IN THE DECISION OF JANUARY 30, 1962, THAT BOTH AN ELIGIBLE GRADE AND PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS WERE REQUIRED TO AUTHORIZE TRAVEL OF A DEPENDENT AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE AND THAT SINCE YOU WERE SERVING IN PAY GRADE E-4 WITH FOUR YEARS' SERVICE WHEN YOU WERE ORDERED TO MAKE A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FROM THE UNITED STATES TO AN OVERSEAS LOCATION, YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION FOR YOUR WIFE AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE. YOU WERE ALSO ADVISED THAT YOUR SUBSEQUENT PROMOTION TO PAY GRADE E-5 WHILE ON DUTY AT YOUR OVERSEAS STATION DID NOT IN ITSELF ENTITLE YOU TO SUCH TRANSPORTATION SINCE NO PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION WAS INVOLVED AFTER YOUR PROMOTION.

YOUR PRESENT LETTER FURNISHES NO INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN OUR PRIOR DECISION AND A FURTHER REVIEW OF YOUR CASE DOES NOT REVEAL THAT THERE IS ANY BASIS FOR CHANGING THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN DECISION OF JANUARY 30, 1962, TO YOU. ACCORDINGLY, WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO AGAIN ADVISE YOU THAT THERE IS NO AUTHORITY TO REIMBURSE YOU FOR YOUR WIFE'S TRANSPORTATION TO YOUR OVERSEAS STATION.

WITH REGARD TO YOUR STATEMENT THAT OTHER MEMBERS, SOME OF THEM WITH LOWER RANK THAN YOU, RECEIVED REIMBURSEMENT FOR THEIR WIVES' TRANSPORTATION, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT WE HAVE NO SPECIFIC INFORMATION TO SHOW THAT OTHER MEMBERS ERRONEOUSLY RECEIVED REIMBURSEMENT FOR DEPENDENT TRAVEL TO YOUR OVERSEAS STATION WHILE YOU WERE THERE. PRESUMABLY IF ANY SUCH ERRONEOUS PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS, THEY WERE CONSIDERED IN THE AUDIT OF THE DISBURSING OFFICERS' ACCOUNTS WITH A VIEW TO RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED. HOWEVER, EVEN IF THE RECORD ESTABLISHED THAT ERRONEOUS PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO OTHER MEMBERS IT WOULD AFFORD NO BASIS FOR ALLOWING YOU CLAIM.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs