A-19828, DECEMBER 6, 1927, 7 COMP. GEN. 365

A-19828: Dec 6, 1927

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION FOR HIS DEPENDENTS BY SUCH CIRCUITOUS ROUTE. HE WILL BE CHARGED WITH THE INCREASED COST TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF HIS DEPENDENTS BY SUCH CIRCUITOUS ROUTE. 1927: THERE IS FOR CONSIDERATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE SETTLEMENT OF CARRIER'S BILLS FOR TRANSPORTATION FURNISHED TO DEPENDENTS OF CAPT. WHETHER ANY AMOUNT IS CHARGEABLE TO THE OFFICER AS EXCESS COST TO THE GOVERNMENT BY REASON OF THE ROUTING OF THE DEPENDENTS FROM PHILADELPHIA TO SAN FRANCISCO. IT APPEARS THE OFFICER WAS FURNISHED TRANSPORTATION IN CONNECTION WITH HIS TRAVEL IN A MILEAGE STATUS. THE ROUTE BY WHICH MILEAGE WAS PAID TO THE OFFICER. WAS VIA CHICAGO. WOULD HAVE BEEN $83.48.

A-19828, DECEMBER 6, 1927, 7 COMP. GEN. 365

TRANSPORTATION - DEPENDENTS OF ARMY OFFICER - CIRCUITOUS ROUTE WHERE AN OFFICER OF THE ARMY TRAVELING IN A MILEAGE STATUS FROM HIS OLD TO HIS NEW PERMANENT STATION SELECTS A CIRCUITOUS ROUTE, WITHOUT INCREASED COST TO THE GOVERNMENT RESULTING THEREFROM ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION FURNISHED HIM ON TRANSPORTATION REQUEST, HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION FOR HIS DEPENDENTS BY SUCH CIRCUITOUS ROUTE, AND PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 12 OF THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, 41 STAT. 604, HE WILL BE CHARGED WITH THE INCREASED COST TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF HIS DEPENDENTS BY SUCH CIRCUITOUS ROUTE.

DECISION BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL, DECEMBER 6, 1927:

THERE IS FOR CONSIDERATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE SETTLEMENT OF CARRIER'S BILLS FOR TRANSPORTATION FURNISHED TO DEPENDENTS OF CAPT. ROBERT J. WAGONER, QUARTERMASTERS CORPS, UNITED STATES ARMY, ON PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FROM PHILADELPHIA, PA., TO THE HAWAIIAN DEPARTMENT, UNDER PARAGRAPH 20, SPECIAL ORDERS, 49, WAR DEPARTMENT, FEBRUARY 27, 1925, AS AMENDED BY PARAGRAPH 3, SPECIAL ORDERS, 62, WAR DEPARTMENT, MARCH 16, 1925, WHETHER ANY AMOUNT IS CHARGEABLE TO THE OFFICER AS EXCESS COST TO THE GOVERNMENT BY REASON OF THE ROUTING OF THE DEPENDENTS FROM PHILADELPHIA TO SAN FRANCISCO. IT APPEARS THE OFFICER WAS FURNISHED TRANSPORTATION IN CONNECTION WITH HIS TRAVEL IN A MILEAGE STATUS, PHILADELPHIA TO SAN FRANCISCO, AT HIS REQUEST, AS FOLLOWS:

PENNA.R.R.SYS., CHICAGO, ILL. C., B. AND Q.R.S., ST. PAUL, MINN. GREAT NORTHERN RY., PORTLAND, ORE. SO.PAC. LINES TO SAN FRANCISCO.

THE DIRECT ROUTE, THE ROUTE BY WHICH MILEAGE WAS PAID TO THE OFFICER, WAS VIA CHICAGO, OMAHA, OGDEN, TO SAN FRANCISCO. THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT HAD THE OFFICER TRAVELED BY THE DIRECT OR OFFICIAL ROUTE, PHILADELPHIA TO SAN FRANCISCO, WOULD HAVE BEEN $83.48; BY THE ROUTE SELECTED BY THE OFFICER, BY REASON OF LAND GRANT INVOLVED, THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE OFFICER'S TRANSPORTATION WAS $74.60. TRANSPORTATION BY THE SAME ROUTE WAS FURNISHED FOR THE OFFICER'S DEPENDENTS WITH NOTATION THAT THE DEPENDENTS WERE "TRAVELING WITH INDIVIDUAL CHANGING STATION, BUT NOT ON TROOP TRAIN.' TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DEPENDENTS BY THE OFFICIAL DIRECT ROUTE WOULD HAVE COST THE GOVERNMENT $193.74. BY THE ROUTE SELECTED BY THE OFFICER FOR HIS OWN TRAVEL, THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT IS $230.46. REQUEST FOR REPORT OF COLLECTION OF THE INCREASED COST TO THE GOVERNMENT BY THE ROUTE SELECTED BY THE OFFICER, PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, 41 STAT. 604, THAT "IF THE COST OF SUCH TRANSPORTATION EXCEEDS THAT FOR TRANSPORTATION FROM THE OLD TO THE NEW STATION THE EXCESS COST SHALL BE PAID TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE OFFICER CONCERNED," A PROVISION OF ARMY REGULATIONS HAS BEEN CITED AS PURPORTING TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUE OF THE TRANSPORTATION IN QUESTION WITHOUT PAYMENT BY THE OFFICER OF THE INCREASED COST. ARMY REGULATIONS 30-920, OF JUNE 1, 1923, PARAGRAPH 6-M (2), PROVIDES:

WHEN THE DEPENDENTS ARE ACCOMPANYING THE INDIVIDUAL CHANGING STATION, BUT NOT ON A TROOP TRAIN, THEY WILL BE ROUTED WITH HIM. * * *

IN PROPER CASES THE REGULATION IS APPROPRIATE. IT HAS NO APPLICATION, HOWEVER, TO A CIRCUITOUS ROUTE SELECTED BY THE OFFICER FOR HIS OWN CONVENIENCE. THE FACT THAT HIS INDIVIDUAL TRAVEL BY THE CIRCUITOUS ROUTE SELECTED BY HIM RESULTED IN NO INCREASED COST TO THE GOVERNMENT BY REASON OF THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHTS UNDER LAND GRANTS DOES NOT ENTITLE HIM TO CIRCUITOUS ROUTING FOR HIS DEPENDENTS AT AN INCREASED COST TO THE GOVERNMENT, AND IF THE REGULATIONS WERE DESIGNED TO APPLY TO SUCH A CASE THEY ARE WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW. WHAT THE OFFICER IS ENTITLED TO FOR HIS DEPENDENTS IS CLEARLY FIXED IN THE LAW-- TRANSPORTATION FROM HIS OLD TO HIS NEW STATION BY THE SHORTEST USUALLY TRAVELED ROUTE. HE, HIMSELF, IS ENTITLED TO MILEAGE OVER THAT ROUTE. HIS SELECTION OF A CIRCUITOUS ROUTE IN CONNECTION WITH HIS TRAVEL IN A MILEAGE STATUS WITHOUT COST TO HIMSELF GIVES HIM NO RIGHT TO TRANSPORTATION BY THE CIRCUITOUS ROUTE FOR HIS DEPENDENTS. THE CASE IS NO DIFFERENT THAN HAD THE ROUTE SELECTED BY THE OFFICER FOR HIS OWN TRAVEL RESULTED IN INCREASED COST TO THE GOVERNMENT AND BEEN CHARGED AGAINST THE OFFICER IN HIS MILEAGE ACCOUNT. THE ITEM WILL BE DEBITED AGAINST THE OFFICER AND COLLECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, CITED.