B-117435, DEC 24, 1953

B-117435: Dec 24, 1953

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

USAF: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 1. ALL TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS TO PACIFIC DESTINATIONS WAS SUSPENDED EFFECTIVE JULY 15. THIS RESTRICTION ON TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS TO JAPAN WAS NOT REMOVED UNTIL AUGUST 5. IT LONG HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT THE RIGHT TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE ONE BUT MAY BE ADMINISTRATIVELY SUSPENDED OR DENIED FOR MILITARY REASONS. THAT WHERE TRANSPORTATION IS ADMINISTRATIVELY REFUSED BY REASON OF MILITARY NECESSITY OR EXPEDIENCY AN OFFICER MAY NOT TRANSPORT HIS DEPENDENTS AT PERSONAL EXPENSE AND BE PAID THE COST THEREOF. WAS TO FURNISH ELIGIBLE PERSONNEL ORDERED TO OVERSEAS DUTY TRANSPORTATION FOR THEIR DEPENDENTS FROM OLD DUTY STATION TO A PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES.

B-117435, DEC 24, 1953

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

LIEUTENANT COLONEL LEON H. COLINSKY, USAF:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 1, 1953, REQUESTING REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT DATED MARCH 2, 1953, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL BY COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT OF YOUR DEPENDENTS (WIFE AND SON) FROM SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, TO TOKYO, JAPAN, BETWEEN THE DATES SEPTEMBER 27 AND 29, 1951, INCIDENT TO ORDERS DATED JULY 6 AND AUGUST 22, 1950, TRANSFERRING YOU FROM DUTY AT MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA, TO DUTY IN JAPAN.

BY DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY MESSAGE WAR 85304 DATED JULY 8, 1950, ALL TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS TO PACIFIC DESTINATIONS WAS SUSPENDED EFFECTIVE JULY 15, 1950, DUE TO THE KOREAN CONFLICT. THIS RESTRICTION ON TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS TO JAPAN WAS NOT REMOVED UNTIL AUGUST 5, 1951, AND THEN ONLY TO THE EXTENT INDICATED IN GENERAL HEADQUARTERS, FAR EAST COMMAND, MESSAGE ISSUED THAT DATE LIFTING THE SUSPENSION OF DEPENDENT TRAVEL TO JAPAN BUT STATING THAT THE MOVEMENT OF DEPENDENTS TO THAT COMMAND WOULD BE STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRIORITY SYSTEM.

IT LONG HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT THE RIGHT TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE ONE BUT MAY BE ADMINISTRATIVELY SUSPENDED OR DENIED FOR MILITARY REASONS, AND THAT WHERE TRANSPORTATION IS ADMINISTRATIVELY REFUSED BY REASON OF MILITARY NECESSITY OR EXPEDIENCY AN OFFICER MAY NOT TRANSPORT HIS DEPENDENTS AT PERSONAL EXPENSE AND BE PAID THE COST THEREOF. CULP V. UNITED STATES, 76 C. CLS. 507. THE PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 303 OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, 63 STAT. 814, WAS TO FURNISH ELIGIBLE PERSONNEL ORDERED TO OVERSEAS DUTY TRANSPORTATION FOR THEIR DEPENDENTS FROM OLD DUTY STATION TO A PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES, SELECTED BY THEM, TO AWAIT TRANSPORTATION TO THE OVERSEAS STATION AT THE PROPER TIME AND IN THEIR PROPER TURN UNDER AN ESTABLISHED PRIORITY SYSTEM. WHILE IT APPEARS THAT YOU HAD OFFICIAL PERMISSION FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS TO TRAVEL TO YOUR OVERSEAS STATION, SUCH PERMISSION WAS MERELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING YOUR DEPENDENTS TO SECURE A PASSPORT AND VISA FOR THEIR TRAVEL. GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION WAS AVAILABLE FOR DEPENDENTS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL ON DUTY IN JAPAN, AND WOULD HAVE BEEN FURNISHED YOUR DEPENDENTS AT NO COST TO YOU UNDER THE PRIORITY SYSTEM HAD THEY AWAITED SUCH TRANSPORTATION. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS UPON WHICH YOU MAY BE REIMBURSED FOR THE COST OF THEIR TRAVEL BY COMMERCIAL MEANS FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO JAPAN.

ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF MARCH 2, 1953, IS SUSTAINED.