A-29711, DECEMBER 16, 1929, 9 COMP. GEN. 246

A-29711: Dec 16, 1929

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

TRANSPORTATION - CIRCUITOUS ROUTES - DEPENDENTS OF AN OFFICER OF THE NAVY THE PRACTICE OF REIMBURSING OFFICERS OF THE NAVY IN CASES WHERE TRANSPORTATION IS PURCHASE ENTIRELY FROM THEIR PRIVATE FUNDS FOR TRAVEL FROM AN ASIATIC STATION VIA EUROPE TO A NEW STATION IN THE UNITED STATES ON THE BASIS OF WHAT IT WOULD HAVE COST THE GOVERNMENT HAD THEY PROCEEDED BY DIRECT ROUTE HAS NO APPLICATION TO SUCH TRAVEL BY THEIR DEPENDENTS WHEN THEY ARE FURNISHED TRANSPORTATION IN KIND FOR ANY PORTION OF THE JOURNEY IN THE UNITED STATES. 1929: THERE IS FOR CONSIDERATION AN APPROVED VOUCHER IN FAVOR OF LIEUT. BY SAID ORDERS LIEUTENANT COMMANDER KEANEY WAS DETACHED FROM DUTY AT CAVITE. HE WAS FURNISHED TRANSPORTATION IN KIND FOR HIMSELF AND WIFE FROM NEW YORK.

A-29711, DECEMBER 16, 1929, 9 COMP. GEN. 246

TRANSPORTATION - CIRCUITOUS ROUTES - DEPENDENTS OF AN OFFICER OF THE NAVY THE PRACTICE OF REIMBURSING OFFICERS OF THE NAVY IN CASES WHERE TRANSPORTATION IS PURCHASE ENTIRELY FROM THEIR PRIVATE FUNDS FOR TRAVEL FROM AN ASIATIC STATION VIA EUROPE TO A NEW STATION IN THE UNITED STATES ON THE BASIS OF WHAT IT WOULD HAVE COST THE GOVERNMENT HAD THEY PROCEEDED BY DIRECT ROUTE HAS NO APPLICATION TO SUCH TRAVEL BY THEIR DEPENDENTS WHEN THEY ARE FURNISHED TRANSPORTATION IN KIND FOR ANY PORTION OF THE JOURNEY IN THE UNITED STATES, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, 41 STAT. 604.

DECISION BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL, DECEMBER 16, 1929:

THERE IS FOR CONSIDERATION AN APPROVED VOUCHER IN FAVOR OF LIEUT. COMMANDER FELIX P. KEANEY, M.C., UNITED STATES NAVY, FOR $193.31, COVERING TRAVEL ALLOWANCES FOR HIMSELF AND WIFE FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED FROM CAVITE, P.I., TO GREAT LAKES, ILL., UNDER ORDERS OF DECEMBER 27, 1928, AND APRIL 9, 1929. BY SAID ORDERS LIEUTENANT COMMANDER KEANEY WAS DETACHED FROM DUTY AT CAVITE, P.I., AND DIRECTED TO PROCEED TO AND REPORT FOR DUTY AT THE UNITED STATES NAVAL HOSPITAL, GREAT LAKES, ILL., GRANTED LEAVE OF ABSENCE EN ROUTE FOR TWO MONTHS, AND PERMISSION TO TRAVEL VIA EUROPE TO NEW YORK, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ANY ADDITIONAL COST OF TRAVEL VIA SUCH ROUTE MUST BE BORNE BY HIM. HE LEFT MANILA, P. I., JANUARY 12, 1929, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS WIFE, PROCEEDING VIA EUROPE, AND ARRIVED AT NEW YORK MARCH 30, 1929, AND GREAT LAKES, ILL., APRIL 24, 1929. HE WAS FURNISHED TRANSPORTATION IN KIND FOR HIMSELF AND WIFE FROM NEW YORK, N.Y., TO GREAT LAKES, ILL.

THE VOUCHER SUBMITTED COVERS REIMBURSEMENT OF WHAT IT WOULD HAVE COST LIEUTENANT COMMANDER KEANEY HAD HE TRAVELED VIA SAN FRANCISCO FOR TRAVEL VIA ARMY TRANSPORT FROM MANILA TO SAN FRANCISCO AND MILEAGE THENCE TO GREAT LAKES, $132.81, AND ON ACCOUNT OF HIS WIFE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST OF COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO GREAT LAKES AND THE COST OF THE TRANSPORTATION FURNISHED HER FROM NEW YORK TO GREAT LAKES, $60.50.

THE AMOUNT STATED AS DUE THE OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF HIS OWN TRAVEL APPEARS TO BE CORRECT AND NO QUESTION ARISES IN REGARD THERETO. THE QUESTION FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER HE IS ENTITLED TO THE COMMERCIAL COST OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF HIS WIFE FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO GREAT LAKES LESS THE COST OF THE TRANSPORTATION FURNISHED HER FROM NEW YORK TO GREAT LAKES.

IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT AN OFFICER IS ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION IN KIND FOR HIS DEPENDENTS UNDER THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, 41 STAT. 604, OR, IN LIEU THEREOF, TO PAYMENT OF AN AMOUNT IN MONEY EQUAL TO THE COMMERCIAL COST WHEN THE TRAVEL SHALL HAVE BEEN COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922, 42 STAT. 631, BUT HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION IN KIND FOR A PART OF THE AUTHORIZED TRANSPORTATION UNDER THE FIRST ACT AND TO PAYMENT IN MONEY FOR A PART OF THE AUTHORIZED TRANSPORTATION UNDER THE SECOND ACT; THAT IS, WHERE TRANSPORTATION IN KIND IS REQUESTED AND FURNISHED THE RIGHTS OF THE OFFICER ARE ENTIRELY UNDER THE ACT OF MAY 18,1920, AND THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922, HAS NO FIELD OF OPERATION. OTHER WORDS, THE RIGHT GIVEN BY THE 1922 ACT IS A COMPLETE SUBSTITUTE FOR THE RIGHT GIVEN BY THE 1920 ACT, AND THE COMMINGLING OF SUCH RIGHTS IS NEITHER CONTEMPLATED NOR AUTHORIZED. 5 COMP. GEN. 569; 7 ID. 544; 90 MS. COMP. GEN. 1014, A 25630, FEBRUARY 23, 1929.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES STATED ABOVE, LIEUT. COMMANDER KEANEY, HAVING REQUESTED AND OBTAINED TRANSPORTATION IN KIND FOR HIS WIFE UNDER THE ACT OF MAY 19, 1920, FROM NEW YORK, WHERE SHE WAS AT THE TIME HE MADE THE REQUEST, TO GREAT LAKES, ILL., HIS NEW STATION, IS ENTITLED TO NOTHING UNDER THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922. HE OBTAINED HIS COMPLETE RIGHTS UNDER THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, 27 COMP. DEC. 530, AND NOTHING IN LIEU THEREOF IS AVAILABLE UNDER THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922.

IN INDORSEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1929, THE CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF NAVIGATION RECOMMENDED THAT CLAIMANT BE REIMBURSED NOT TO EXCEED WHAT IT WOULD HAVE COST THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE FURNISHED TRANSPORTATION FOR HIS DEPENDENT FROM SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., PORT OF ENTRY, TO GREAT LAKES, ILL., LESS THE COST OF THE TRANSPORTATION FURNISHED FROM NEW YORK, N.Y., TO GREAT LAKES, ILL.; AND IN INDORSEMENT OF NOVEMBER 5, 1929, STATED THAT THIS RECOMMENDATION WAS BASED ON THE POLICY OF REIMBURSING CLAIMANTS IN CASES WHERE TRANSPORTATION IS PURCHASED ENTIRELY FROM THEIR OWN FUNDS FOR TRAVEL BY EUROPE TO THE NEW STATION IN THE UNITED STATES, ON THE BASIS OF WHAT IT WOULD HAVE COST THE GOVERNMENT HAD THEY PROCEEDED BY DIRECT ROUTE. THE CLAIMANT, HOWEVER DID NOT PURCHASE TRANSPORTATION FOR HIS DEPENDENT FROM HIS OWN FUNDS FOR THE ENTIRE DISTANCE TO HIS NEW STATION, BUT ONLY TO NEW YORK, AND OBTAINED TRANSPORTATION IN KIND FOR HIS DEPENDENT THENCE TO HIS NEW STATION UNDER THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920. THE SAID POLICY HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS IN THIS CASE. PAYMENT OF THE ITEM, $60.50, IS THEREFORE NOT AUTHORIZED.