B-141572, DEC. 9, 1960
Highlights
THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ADVISED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THAT THOSE AMOUNTS WERE PAID TO YOU IN ERROR SINCE YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR THE FIRST PERIOD OR TO PER DIEM FOR THE SECOND. THAT REFUND OF THOSE AMOUNTS IS REQUIRED. THE RECORD FURTHER SHOWS THAT YOU WERE ADVISED THAT YOU MAY NOT BE PAID PER DIEM FOR THE PERIOD OF TRAINING DUTY SUBSEQUENT TO MARCH 8. YOU WERE ADVISED BY DECISION B-141572. THAT IF YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE ENTITLED TO ANY OTHER AMOUNT "FOR THE PERIOD YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO PER DIEM" YOU COULD SUBMIT AN ITEMIZED CLAIM SHOWING THE BASIS FOR EACH ITEM. (2) $53.40 REPRESENTING A SURCHARGE OF 60 CENTS PER DAY WHICH YOU SAY YOU WERE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR MEALS FOR 89 DAYS.
B-141572, DEC. 9, 1960
TO MR. RONALD J. WELLS-HENDERSON:
YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 17, 1960, REFERS FURTHER TO YOUR INDEBTEDNESS TO THE UNITED STATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $239.14, INCIDENT TO YOUR SERVICE AS A COMMISSIONED OFFICER, UNITED STATES ARMY RESERVE.
YOUR INDEBTEDNESS CONSISTS OF $71.14, REPRESENTING PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 15 THROUGH 20, 1956, AND $168 REPRESENTING PER DIEM FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 26 THROUGH MARCH 7, 1956. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ADVISED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THAT THOSE AMOUNTS WERE PAID TO YOU IN ERROR SINCE YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR THE FIRST PERIOD OR TO PER DIEM FOR THE SECOND, AND THAT REFUND OF THOSE AMOUNTS IS REQUIRED; ALSO, THAT SIMILAR ADVICE HAS BEEN FURNISHED TO CONGRESSMEN CHARLES A. BOYLE AND THOMAS M. PELLY. THE RECORD FURTHER SHOWS THAT YOU WERE ADVISED THAT YOU MAY NOT BE PAID PER DIEM FOR THE PERIOD OF TRAINING DUTY SUBSEQUENT TO MARCH 8, 1956.
IN YOUR LETTER OF MAY 14, 1960, YOU QUESTIONED HOW YOU COULD BE REIMBURSED FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES IF NOT BY PER DIEM. IN RESPONSE, YOU WERE ADVISED BY DECISION B-141572, DATED JUNE 13, 1960, THAT IF YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE ENTITLED TO ANY OTHER AMOUNT "FOR THE PERIOD YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO PER DIEM" YOU COULD SUBMIT AN ITEMIZED CLAIM SHOWING THE BASIS FOR EACH ITEM. IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER, YOU CLAIM (1) $71.14 AS PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 15 TO 20, 1956; (2) $53.40 REPRESENTING A SURCHARGE OF 60 CENTS PER DAY WHICH YOU SAY YOU WERE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR MEALS FOR 89 DAYS, JANUARY 26 TO APRIL 23, 1956, BECAUSE YOU WERE CONSIDERED TO BE IN A PER DIEM STATUS; (3) $133.50 REPRESENTING THE DIFFERENCE IN VALUE ($1.50 PER DAY FOR 89 DAYS) BETWEEN THE TEMPORARY QUARTERS YOU WERE FURNISHED AND PERMANENT QUARTERS YOU BELIEVE YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN FURNISHED IF NOT IN A PER DIEM STATUS; (4) $50 AS EXTRA LAUNDRY AND OTHER INCIDENTAL EXPENSES ARISING FROM ,SHORT BAGGAGE" BECAUSE OF THE LIMITED PERIOD OF DUTY; AND (5) $100 AS REMUNERATION FOR INNUMERABLE INTANGIBLE EXPENSES AND LOSSES RESULTING FROM YOUR DUTY ASSIGNMENT, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE WANTED TO BRING YOUR MOTHER WITH YOU BUT WERE UNABLE TO DO SO. YOUR TOTAL CLAIM IS FOR $408.04.
AS STATED IN PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED UNDER CONTROLLING REGULATIONS TO PAY AND ALLOWANCES PRIOR TO JANUARY 20, 1956, THE DATE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY FOR YOU TO BEGIN TRAVEL BY RAIL FROM SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, TO FORT LEE, VIRGINIA, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDERS OF DECEMBER 20, 1955, DIRECTING YOU TO PROCEED TO THE LATTER PLACE FOR SIX MONTHS' ACTIVE DUTY TRAINING. AND, WE KNOW OF NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REIMBURSE YOU FOR LOSS OF CIVILIAN WAGES BY REASON OF YOUR EARLY DEPARTURE NOR FOR ADDITIONAL LAUNDRY EXPENSE OR OTHER INCIDENTAL AND INTANGIBLE EXPENSES WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT YOU WERE ORDERED TO SIX MONTHS' ACTIVE DUTY TRAINING AS A COMMISSIONED OFFICER IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY RESERVE.
WITH RESPECT TO THE DIFFERENCE IN VALUE OF THE TEMPORARY TYPE QUARTERS FURNISHED AND THOSE WHICH YOU BELIEVE YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, IT LONG HAS BEEN THE RULE THAT QUARTERS FURNISHED TO, AND OCCUPIED BY, A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES ARE DEEMED TO BE ADEQUATE QUARTERS. THE ASSIGNMENT OF QUARTERS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED DIFFERENT OR MORE DESIRABLE QUARTERS IF YOU HAD NOT BEEN PAID A PER DIEM. HOWEVER, EVEN IF IT WERE ESTABLISHED THAT YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED DIFFERENT QUARTERS THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE NO LEGAL BASIS TO ALLOW YOU ANY AMOUNT REPRESENTING THE DIFFERENCE IN VALUE OF SUCH QUARTERS AND THOSE WHICH YOU OCCUPIED. THUS, NO BASIS IS FOUND FOR ALLOWANCE OF ITEMS (1), (3), (4) AND (5) OF YOUR CLAIM. WITH REGARD TO ITEM (2), SINCE IT NOW APPEARS THAT YOU WERE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR MEALS AT A HIGHER RATE BECAUSE IT WAS BELIEVED YOU WERE IN A PER DIEM STATUS, YOUR INDEBTEDNESS WILL BE REDUCED BY THE SUM OF $53.40, LEAVING A BALANCE DUE THE UNITED STATES OF $185.74. YOUR REMITTANCE IN THAT AMOUNT SHOULD BE IN THE MANNER AND FORM STATED IN THE DECISION OF JUNE 13, 1960.