A-4417, AUGUST 5, 1924, 4 COMP. GEN. 156

A-4417: Aug 5, 1924

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

NOT IN EXCESS OF WHAT IT WOULD HAVE COST THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE FURNISHED THEM TRANSPORTATION. SETTLEMENT DISALLOWED REIMBURSEMENT BECAUSE CLAIMANT WAS NOT ORDERED TO MAKE A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION. IT APPEARS THAT PETERSON WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE FLEET NAVAL RESERVE ON JULY 22. HE WAS DIRECTED TO PROCEED TO THE U.S.S. THESE ORDERS WERE CARRIED OUT. THIS WAS NOT OBTAINED. STATING THAT "GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION FOR DEPENDENTS WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION WAS NOT FURNISHED.'. THE BUREAU OF NAVIGATION STATED THAT HE WAS RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY ON DECEMBER 18. THE BUREAU STATED THAT PETERSON WAS RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY ON OCTOBER 30. APPARENTLY THAT CONCLUSION IS BASED ON INSTRUCTIONS IN ALNAV 29.

A-4417, AUGUST 5, 1924, 4 COMP. GEN. 156

TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS - NAVAL RESERVE FORCE (FLEET) ENLISTED MAN THE PERMANENT SEPARATION OF A MEMBER OF THE FLEET NAVAL RESERVE ON ACTIVE DUTY FROM THE U.S.S. SCORPION AT CONSTANTINOPLE, TURKEY, AND HIS TRANSFER TO THE U.S.S. BRAZOS, FOR FURTHER TRANSFER TO THE NEAREST RECEIVING SHIP AT A PORT OF ARRIVAL IN THE UNITED STATES FOR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY, CONSTITUTED A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, 41 STAT. 604, AND ENTITLED HIM TO REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION OF HIS DEPENDENTS FROM CONSTANTINOPLE, TURKEY, TO NEW YORK, N.Y., NOT IN EXCESS OF WHAT IT WOULD HAVE COST THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE FURNISHED THEM TRANSPORTATION.

DECISION BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL, AUGUST 5, 1924:

WILLIAM EARL PETERSON, C.B.M., F.N.R., APPLIED JANUARY 11, 1924, FOR REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT NO. N-30122, DATED MAY 19, 1923, DISALLOWING HIS CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF COST OF TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS FROM CONSTANTINOPLE, TURKEY, TO NEW YORK, FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED IN NOVEMBER, 1922.

SETTLEMENT DISALLOWED REIMBURSEMENT BECAUSE CLAIMANT WAS NOT ORDERED TO MAKE A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION.

IT APPEARS THAT PETERSON WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE FLEET NAVAL RESERVE ON JULY 22, 1922, AND THAT BY ORDERS DATED OCTOBER 31, 1922, HE WAS DIRECTED TO PROCEED TO THE U.S.S. BRAZOS AND REPORT TO THE COMMANDING OFFICER FOR FURTHER TRANSFER TO THE NEAREST RECEIVING SHIP AT PORT OF ARRIVAL IN THE UNITED STATES FOR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE SERVICE. THESE ORDERS WERE CARRIED OUT, AND ON DECEMBER 18, 1922, THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE RECEIVING SHIP BARRACKS AT HAMPTON ROADS, VA., ORDERED CLAIMANT TO PROCEED TO PHILADELPHIA, PA., AND UPON ARRIVAL THERE TO CONSIDER HIMSELF AS PLACED ON INACTIVE DUTY. PRIOR TO LEAVING CONSTANTINOPLE CLAIMANT MADE REQUEST, ON OCTOBER 27, 1922, FOR TRANSPORTATION OF HIS WIFE AND TWO CHILDREN FROM CONSTANTINOPLE, TURKEY, TO NEW YORK, UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920. THIS WAS NOT OBTAINED, AND BY INDORSEMENT OF JANUARY 30, 1923, ON SAID APPLICATION THE BUREAU OF NAVIGATION RECOMMENDED REIMBURSEMENT TO CLAIMANT, STATING THAT "GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION FOR DEPENDENTS WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION WAS NOT FURNISHED.'

IN REPLY TO A REQUEST FOR THE NAVAL HISTORY OF PETERSON ON MAY 9, 1923, THE BUREAU OF NAVIGATION STATED THAT HE WAS RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY ON DECEMBER 18, 1922; AGAIN IN LETTER DATED OCTOBER 6, 1923, THE BUREAU STATED THAT PETERSON WAS RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY ON OCTOBER 30, 1922, THE DATE OF HIS TRANSFER TO THE U.S.S. BRAZOS FOR PASSAGE HOME. APPARENTLY THAT CONCLUSION IS BASED ON INSTRUCTIONS IN ALNAV 29, OF JULY 3, 1922, AS FOLLOWS:

OUTSIDE THE CONTINENTAL LIMITS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION SHALL BE USED WHENEVER PRACTICABLE AND MEN MAY BE RETAINED ON ACTIVE DUTY ONLY UNTIL TRANSFERRED TO GOVERNMENT VESSEL FOR PASSAGE HOME.

SAID "ALNAV 29," HOWEVER, WAS ONLY INSTRUCTIONS RELATIVE TO THE TRANSFER OF CHIEF PETTY OFFICERS TO THE FLEET NAVAL RESERVE, WHICH IN GENERAL TERMS INSTRUCTED COMMANDING OFFICERS UPON RECEIPT OF APPROVED APPLICATIONS TO TRANSFER MEN CONCERNED AND PLACE THEM ON INACTIVE DUTY. SUCH GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS ARE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS CONTRAVENING SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS AND ORDERS RELATIVE TO SUCH TRANSFERS. THE COMMANDING OFFICER'S AUTHORITY FOR THE TRANSFER OF CLAIMANT WAS RADIO MESSAGE "STANAV 76" OF OCTOBER 26, 1922, DIRECTING THAT "ALL DISCHARGES FOR EXPIRATION OF ENLISTMENTS PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1 TO BE TRANSFERRED TO BRAZOS. ALSO * * * TRANSFERS TO FLEET NAVAL RESERVE.' PURSUANT TO SAID DISPATCH THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE U.S.S. SCORPION, ON OCTOBER 31, 1922, WROTE THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE U.S.S. BRAZOS AS FOLLOWS:

* * * THE FOLLOWING-NAMED MAN IS TRANSFERRED TO THE VESSEL UNDER YOUR COMMAND FOR FURTHER TRANSFER TO THE NEAREST RECEIVING SHIP AT PORT OF ARRIVAL IN THE UNITED STATES FOR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY.

PETERSON, WILLIAM EARL, C.B.M. U.S.F.N.R.C.-1C.

A TRANSFERRED MEMBER OF THE FLEET NAVAL RESERVE ON ACTIVE DUTY HAS AN ASSIMILATED STATUS TO AN ENLISTED MAN. UNLESS REQUESTED IT IS NOT THE PRACTICE OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT TO DISCHARGE AN ENLISTED MAN IN A FOREIGN PORT, THE NAVY REGULATIONS PROHIBITING DISCHARGES OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES WHERE THE ENLISTMENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE UNITED STATES EXCEPT ON WRITTEN REQUEST. CONSIDERING THE ORDERS AND INSTRUCTIONS RELATIVE TO CLAIMANT'S TRANSFER AND RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY IN THE LIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT'S PRACTICE REGARDING ENLISTED MEN IT IS CONCLUDED THAT HE WAS NOT PLACED ON INACTIVE DUTY UNTIL DECEMBER 18, 1922, AS STATED IN HIS ORDERS OF THAT DATE, AND THAT UNTIL SO RELEASED HE WAS ON ACTIVE DUTY AND ENTITLED TO ACTIVE DUTY PAY.

THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, 41 STAT. 604, PROVIDES:

THAT HEREAFTER WHEN ANY COMMISSIONED OFFICER, * * * WARRANT OFFICER, CHIEF PETTY OFFICER, OR PETTY OFFICER (FIRST CLASS), HAVING A WIFE OR DEPENDENT CHILD OR CHILDREN, IS ORDERED TO MAKE A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION, THE UNITED STATES SHALL FURNISH TRANSPORTATION IN KIND * * * TO HIS NEW STATION FOR THE WIFE AND DEPENDENT CHILD OR CHILDREN: PROVIDED, THAT FOR PERSONS IN THE NAVAL SERVICE THE TERM "PERMANENT STATION," AS USED IN THIS SECTION, SHALL BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN A SHORE STATION OR THE HOME YARD OF THE VESSEL TO WHICH THE PERSON CONCERNED MAY BE ORDERED; * *

THE PURPOSE OF THAT ACT WAS TO RELIEVE THE PERSONNEL THEREIN MENTIONED WHEN ORDERED TO CHANGE DUTY STATIONS, OF THE PERSONAL EXPENSE INCIDENT TO MOVING THEIR DEPENDENTS TO THE NEW STATION OR POST OF DUTY. WHEN THE TRAVEL PERFORMED ACCOMPLISHES THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT TRANSPORTATION IS AUTHORIZED. UPON A TEMPORARY CHANGE IN WHICH CASE IT IS KNOWN THAT THE OFFICER WILL RETURN TO HIS PERMANENT STATION, OR AFTER A BRIEF PERIOD PROCEED TO ANOTHER STATION, NO NECESSITY FOR MOVING DEPENDENTS TO SUCH TEMPORARY STATION USUALLY EXISTS AND ON SUCH CHANGE THE ACT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT TRANSPORTATION SHALL BE FURNISHED. HOWEVER, WHERE THE CHANGE INVOLVES A PERMANENT SEPARATION FROM THE OLD STATION, AND REQUIRES DUTY AT A NEW POST OR STATION, THE TRANSFER IS PERMANENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT. DECISION JANUARY 25, 1922, REVIEW 637, 5 MS. COMP. GEN., 1356; DECISION DATED JANUARY 31, 1923, 17 ID., 1390; 1 COMP. GEN., 227.

ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT'S ORDERS OF OCTOBER 31, 1922, RECITE THAT HIS NOT RELEASE ORDERS NOR WERE RELEASE ORDERS ISSUED UNTIL DECEMBER 18, 1922, AND UNTIL RELEASED FROM ACTIVE SERVICE HE REMAINED IN A DUTY STATUS SO AND UNTIL RELEASED DROM ACTIVE SERVICE HE REMAINED IN A DUTY STATUS SO AS TO ENTITLE TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS IN CONNECTION WITH HIS ORDERS TO RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES.

CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO WHAT IT WOULD HAVE COST THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE FURNISHED TRANSPORTATION FOR HIS DEPENDENTS, WIFE AND TWO CHILDREN, AGES 18 MONTHS AND 5 MONTHS, FROM CONSTANTINOPLE TO NEW YORK.

UPON REVIEW THE SETTLEMENT IS MODIFIED AND $210.82 CERTIFIED DUE CLAIMANT.