A-8046, JUNE 27, 1925, 4 COMP. GEN. 1067

A-8046: Jun 27, 1925

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

IS GRANTED PERMISSION TO REPORT TO ANOTHER STATION TO ENABLE HIM TO TRAVEL BY OTHER MEANS AT HIS OWN EXPENSE AND SUCH PERMISSION DOES NOT INCLUDE HIS DEPENDENTS. HIS RIGHT TO TRANSPORTATION FOR THEM AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE IS NOT AFFECTED. 3 COMP. THE CHARGE RAISED WAS BASED ON DECISION OF DECEMBER 10. THERE WAS NO AUTHORITY OF LAW TO FURNISH YOUR WIFE TRANSPORTATION AS PROVIDED IN THE ACT OF MAY 18. YOU STATE SAID ORDERS WERE NOT RECEIVED BY YOU UNTIL SEVERAL DAYS AFTER THE DEPARTURE OF THE TENNESSEE FOR THE PACIFIC COAST. WERE REVOKED BY ORDERS OF JUNE 3. YOU STATE THAT AFTER THE REPORTING OF YOUR RELIEF YOU WERE INFORMED YOU WOULD BE ORDERED TO THE NEW MEXICO VIA THE U.S.S. THAT YOU DID NOT ACCEPT THE ORDERS (WHICH STIPULATED THAT IF YOU DID NOT DESIRE TO BEAR THE EXPENSE OF TRAVEL TO RETURN THE ORDERS FOR CANCELLATION) UNTIL YOU WERE ASSURED THAT TRANSPORTATION WOULD BE ISSUED FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS.

A-8046, JUNE 27, 1925, 4 COMP. GEN. 1067

TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS OF A NAVAL OFFICER WHERE AN OFFICER OF THE NAVY, ORDERED TO MAKE A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION, IS GRANTED PERMISSION TO REPORT TO ANOTHER STATION TO ENABLE HIM TO TRAVEL BY OTHER MEANS AT HIS OWN EXPENSE AND SUCH PERMISSION DOES NOT INCLUDE HIS DEPENDENTS, HIS RIGHT TO TRANSPORTATION FOR THEM AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE IS NOT AFFECTED. 3 COMP. GEN. 358 MODIFIED.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL TO LIEUT. S. B. BREWER, UNITED STATES NAVY, JUNE 27, 1925:

THERE HAS BEEN RECEIVED YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 12, 1925, REQUESTING REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT NO.COL. 054786, DATED DECEMBER 9, 1924, CHARGING YOU WITH $150.29 FOR TRANSPORTATION FURNISHED YOU WIFE FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED BY HER FROM PHILADELPHIA, PA., TO SEATTLE, WASH., BY REASON OF ORDERS OF JUNE 22, 1921, DETACHING YOU FROM DUTY ON BOARD THE U.S.S. BLAKELEY AND ASSIGNING YOU TO DUTY ON THE U.S.S. NEW MEXICO.

THE CHARGE RAISED WAS BASED ON DECISION OF DECEMBER 10, 1923, 3 COMP. GEN. 358, HOLDING THAT UNDER THE ORDERS IN QUESTION, WHICH STIPULATED THAT ALL TRAVEL PERFORMED IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH CHANGE OF DUTY MUST BE WITHOUT EXPENSE TO THE GOVERNMENT, THERE WAS NO AUTHORITY OF LAW TO FURNISH YOUR WIFE TRANSPORTATION AS PROVIDED IN THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, 41 STAT. 604.

THE ORDERS IN QUESTION DETACHED YOU FROM DUTY ON BOARD THE U.S.S. BLAKELEY AND AUTHORIZED YOU TO REPORT TO THE COMMANDING OFFICER U.S.S. NEW MEXICO FUR DUTY ON BOARD THAT VESSEL, AND STIPULATED THAT "ALL TRAVEL PERFORMED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ABOVE MUST BE WITHOUT EXPENSE TO THE GOVERNMENT.' THE ORIGINAL ORDERS, DATED MAY 24, 1921, FOR CHANGE OF DUTY FROM THE U.S.S. BLAKELEY TO THE U.S.S. NEW MEXICO DIRECTED YOU TO PERFORM THE TRAVEL INVOLVED ON BOARD THE U.S.S. TENNESSEE; YOU STATE SAID ORDERS WERE NOT RECEIVED BY YOU UNTIL SEVERAL DAYS AFTER THE DEPARTURE OF THE TENNESSEE FOR THE PACIFIC COAST. THE ORDERS OF MAY 24, 1921, WERE REVOKED BY ORDERS OF JUNE 3, 1921,CONTINUING YOU ON THE U.S.S. BLAKELEY.

YOU STATE THAT AFTER THE REPORTING OF YOUR RELIEF YOU WERE INFORMED YOU WOULD BE ORDERED TO THE NEW MEXICO VIA THE U.S.S. STUBLING, SAILING IN SEPTEMBER, 1921; THAT RATHER THAN WAIT SO LONG FOR TRANSPORTATION YOU VOLUNTEERED TO PAY YOUR OWN WAY ACROSS THE CONTINENT, BUT THAT YOU MADE NO SUCH AGREEMENT REGARDING TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENTS, AND THAT YOU DID NOT ACCEPT THE ORDERS (WHICH STIPULATED THAT IF YOU DID NOT DESIRE TO BEAR THE EXPENSE OF TRAVEL TO RETURN THE ORDERS FOR CANCELLATION) UNTIL YOU WERE ASSURED THAT TRANSPORTATION WOULD BE ISSUED FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS; ALSO THAT THE REASON FOR SO ORDERING YOU TO PAY YOUR OWN EXPENSES WAS THAT THE APPROPRIATION AVAILABLE FOR TRANSPORTATION OF OFFICERS WAS ALMOST EXHAUSTED, BUT THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT FUNDS IN THE APPROPRIATION FOR TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS. YOU FURTHER STATE THAT IT WAS NEITHER THE INTENTION ON YOUR PART NOR ON THE PART OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT YOU SHOULD DEFRAY THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENTS. SUCH STATEMENTS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY IN LETTER OF JULY 22, 1924, IN WHICH HE STATED THAT AT THE TIME YOUR ORDERS WERE WRITTEN THERE WAS A SHORTAGE IN THE ALLOTMENT FOR PAYMENT OF MILEAGE TO OFFICERS, BUT AMPLE FUNDS FOR PAYMENT OF TRAVEL OF OFFICERS' DEPENDENTS, AND THAT IN VIEW OF THAT FACT THERE WAS NO INTENTION, IN ISSUING SAID ORDERS, TO DEPRIVE YOU OF TRANSPORTATION FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS.

FROM THE FOREGOING IT APPEARS THAT THE CHANGE OF STATION REQUIRING TRAVEL WAS ORDERED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THAT THE PERMISSION TO REPORT TO THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE NEW MEXICO RATHER THAN AN ORDER TO SO REPORT AND TRAVEL BY NAVAL VESSEL HAD FOR ITS PURPOSE TO CONSERVE THE APPROPRIATION FOR MILEAGE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE DECISION OF DECEMBER 10, 1923, 3 COMP. GEN. 358, IS MODIFIED AND THE CHARGE OF $150.29 RAISED AGAINST YOU IN THE SETTLEMENT WILL BE REMOVED.