B-156043, APR. 26, 1965

B-156043, APR. 26, 1965

TO MRS. MARIE B. POSITION:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 31, 1965, CONCERNING OUR DECISION OF MARCH 3, 1965, B-156043, TO YOU, WHEREIN WE SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF A PORTION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS INCIDENT TO YOUR TRANSFER OF OFFICIAL STATION.

THE FACTS OF YOUR CASE WERE FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR DECISION OF MARCH 3, 1965, B-156043, TO YOU, AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. WE WILL ATTEMPT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS IN THE ORDER THAT THEY ARE PRESENTED. YOU SAY THAT AT THE END OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 1 OF OUR DECISION OF MARCH 3, 1965, THAT THE BALANCE OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS SHIPPED TO DETROIT FROM PUERTO RICO VIA WASHINGTON CONSISTED OF 6,740 POUNDS NOT 8,900 POUNDS. GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING NO. A 0310882 ON FILE IN OUR OFFICE SHOWS THAT YOU SHIPPED FROM RIO PIEDARS, PUERTO RICO, TO SECURITY STORAGE COMPANY, 1140 15TH STREET N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C., HOUSEHOLD GOODS WEIGHING 19,400 POUNDS GROSS, 10,500 POUNDS TARE OR 8,900 POUNDS NET. THE AMOUNT OF $2,176.53 WHICH THE GOVERNMENT EXPENDED FOR THE TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS REPRESENTS $2,099.38, WHICH WAS PAID TO CARRIERS, AS ITEMIZED IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF JULY 3, 1962, PLUS $77.15 ERRONEOUSLY ALLOWED YOU IN THAT SETTLEMENT. A COPY OF SUCH SETTLEMENT IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE. THE LIMITATION FOR SHIPMENT OF 7,000 POUNDS NET OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE IS CONTAINED IN SECTION 1, PUB.L. 600, 60 STAT. 806, APPROVED AUGUST 2, 1946, AS AMENDED BY PUB.L. 707, APPROVED SEPTEMBER 6, 1960, 5 U.S.C. 73B-1.

CONCERNING YOUR QUESTION WHETHER SOME OF THE CHARGES FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF ALLOWANCES FOR DRAYAGE AS APPEARS IN SECTION 19 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9805, AS AMENDED, SECTION 19 PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:

"SEC. 19. ALLOWANCES FOR DRAYAGE. IN CASE DOOR-TO-DOOR COMMON CARRIER RATES ARE NOT APPLICABLE, THE ACTUAL COSTS OF DRAYAGE (NOT TO EXCEED THE AUTHORIZED WEIGHT) TO AND FROM THE COMMON CARRIER SHALL BE ALLOWED.'

YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 3 OF OUR DECISION OF MARCH 3, TO YOU, WHICH STATES:

"IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THE "THRU RATE" ($26.60 CWT.) INCLUDES PICKUP AND PACKING AT ORIGIN AND DELIVERY AND UNPACKING AT DESTINATION.'

IN THE CONSTRUCTIVE COMPUTATION YOU WERE ALLOWED $ .50 PER HUNDRED WEIGHT FOR STORAGE, $ .50 PER HUNDRED WEIGHT FOR HANDLING AT WAREHOUSE, $1 PER HUNDRED WEIGHT FOR DELIVERY INTO STORAGE, AND $26.60 THRU RATE PER HUNDRED WEIGHT FOR SHIPMENT FROM PUERTO RICO TO DETROIT, MICHIGAN. THESE ARE THE RATES AUTHORIZED TO BE PAID BY INTERNATIONAL SEA VAN, INC., FREIGHT TARIFF NO. 1-A, FOR DIRECT TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE. IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THE 650 POUNDS OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS WERE SHIPPED AT THE THRU RATE OF $26.60 PER HUNDRED WEIGHT. IF YOUR EFFECTS HAD BEEN SHIPPED BY A DIRECT ROUTE THE ABOVE RATES WOULD INCLUDE THE COST OF DELIVERY OUT OF STORAGE.

THE CARRIER'S BILL OF JANUARY 24, 1962, WHICH YOU SAY SHOWS THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE CHARGE SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNMENT BY THE STORAGE COMPANY IS MERELY A CORRECTION OF A PRIOR CHARGE. THE BILL SHOWS THE GOVERNMENT WAS ORIGINALLY CHARGED FOR STORAGE OF YOUR EFFECTS AS FOLLOWS:

TABLE

IN 5/16/61

OUT 7/27/61

2 MOS. AT $ .60 PER CWT. $106.80

WHSE. HDLG. AT $ .60 PER CWT. 53.40

CARTAGE AT $1.50 PER CWT. 133.50

$293.70

THE CORRECTION SHOWS:

IN 5/16/61

OUT 6/16/61

1 MO. AT $ .60 PER CWT. ON 8,900 LBS. $ 53.40

WHSE. HDLG. AT $ .60 PER CWT. 8,900 LBS. 53.40

CARTAGE AT $ .175 PER CWT. 2,160 LBS. 37.80

2 MOS. AT $ .60 PER CWT. 6,740 LBS.

6/16/61 TO 7/27/61 80.88

$225.48

THE ENCLOSED COPY OF OUR SETTLEMENT OF JULY 3, 1962, SHOWS THE CARRIER WAS PAID $225.48 FOR THE STORAGE.

CONCERNING YOUR STATEMENT AS TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SHIPMENT OF YOUR BAGGAGE, THE MATTER IS NOT FOR OUR CONSIDERATION AT THIS TIME AS WE HAVE NOTHING OF RECORD TO SHOW THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL HAD BEEN GRANTED FOR THE SHIPMENT OF SUCH EXCESS BAGGAGE. HOWEVER, SINCE THE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT THERETO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF "HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS" TO 7,000 POUNDS THAT MAY BE SHIPPED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE, IT MAY BE STATED THAT BAGGAGE FOR WHICH A CHARGE IS MADE IS FOR INCLUSION WITHIN SUCH LIMITATION. HENCE, THE 7,000 POUNDS HAVING OTHERWISE BEEN EXCEEDED THERE WOULD BE NO AUTHORITY TO ALLOW ANY REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE EXCESS BAGGAGE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER AN APPROVAL THEREOF BE OBTAINED AT THIS TIME.

YOU SAY THAT NO MENTION WAS MADE IN OUR DECISION OF THE MANNER IN WHICH YOUR EFFECTS WERE ROUTED BY THE SHIPPING AGENT AND THE FACT YOU HAD NOT BEEN TOLD THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO STORE HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS IN TRANSIT. WE POINT OUT THAT AN EMPLOYEE WHOSE OFFICIAL STATION IS TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER LOCATION IS PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR SEEING THAT HIS TRAVEL AND SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS CONFORM TO THE APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. HOWEVER, OUR DECISION DID NOT INTEND TO CONVEY THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU COULD NOT STORE YOUR GOODS IN TRANSIT TO YOUR NEW STATION. THAT DECISION MERELY HELD THAT YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY EXCESS COSTS RESULTING FROM DEVIATING FROM THE DIRECT ROUTE TO YOUR NEW STATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF STORING YOUR EFFECTS OR TO EXCESS COSTS RESULTING FROM EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM WEIGHT LIMITATION. THERE APPEARS NO DOUBT THAT THE EFFECTS WERE SHIPPED TO WASHINGTON AND STORED AS DIRECTED BY YOU. IN LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1962, FROM YOU TO MR. HAROLD X. SUMMERS, YOU SAY:

"WHEN I TRANSFERRED FROM PUERTO RICO--- AS THE RESULT OF A TELEPHONE INQUIRY AND WITHOUT OFFICIAL TRAVEL ORDERS--- IT WAS WITH THE KNOWLEDGE, DIRECTION AND GUIDANCE OF THE OFFICE MANAGER OF THE PUERTO RICO OFFICE AS WELL AS THAT OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR. MY MOTHER, WHO IS MY SOLE DEPENDENT IS 76 YEARS OF AGE AND ILL, IS AN OFFICIAL PART OF MY FAMILY. SINCE I WAS COMING TO A STRANGE AREA--- I HAD TO SETTLE HER TEMPORARILY IN WASHINGTON, D.C. UNTIL I COULD FIND A HOME IN DETROIT. WASHINGTON WAS MY OFFICIAL STATION BEFORE TRANSFERRING TO PUERTO RICO AND THE FURNISHINGS WERE SHIPPED VIA BOAT FROM BALTIMORE TO PUERTO RICO.

"SINCE I WOULD NEED SOME OF THE FURNISHINGS TO GET HER TEMPORARILY SETTLED IN THE WASHINGTON AREA--- I HAD THEM SHIPPED TO DETROIT TO BE STORED EN ROUTE IN THE WASHINGTON AREA.'

THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING WE MUST SUSTAIN THE ACTION TAKEN IN OUR DECISION OF MARCH 3, 1965, B-156043, TO YOU.