B-119275, APR 25, 1955

B-119275: Apr 25, 1955

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

USAF: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 2. IT APPEARS THAT THE TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED BY YOUR DEPENDENTS UNDER "TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION OF DEPENDENTS TO NEAC" DATED DECEMBER 19. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN PAID $718.56. WAS DISALLOWED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF OCTOBER 27. CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO SECOND INDORSEMENT DATED OCTOBER 31. IN WHICH IT IS INDICATED THAT ALTHOUGH GOVERNMENT VESSELS TRAVELED BETWEEN NEW YORK AND NEWFOUNDLAND AT THAT TIME. GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS SINCE THE TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION AUTHORIZED TRAVEL BY PRIVATELY OWNED CONVEYANCE RATHER THAN BY GOVERNMENT VESSEL. THAT AT THE TIME IN QUESTION REGULAR GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE BETWEEN NEW YORK AND NEWFOUNDLAND WAS IN OPERATION.

B-119275, APR 25, 1955

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

MAJOR E.L. GIPSON, USAF:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 2, 1954, REQUESTING REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT DATED OCTOBER 27, 1953, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS (WIFE AND STEPDAUGHTER, 17 YEARS OF AGE) BY PRIVATELY OWNED CONVEYANCE FROM LAWNDALE, CALIFORNIA, TO HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA, AND BY COMMERCIAL VESSEL THENCE TO ST. JOHNS, NEWFOUNDLAND, IN DECEMBER 1951 AND JANUARY 1952, INCIDENT TO YOUR PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FROM ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE, WASHINGTON, D.C., TO PEPPERRELL AIR FORCE BASE, NEWFOUNDLAND, UNDER ORDERS OF OCTOBER 30, 1951.

IT APPEARS THAT THE TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED BY YOUR DEPENDENTS UNDER "TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION OF DEPENDENTS TO NEAC" DATED DECEMBER 19, 1951, WHICH EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THAT REIMBURSEMENT WOULD NOT BE IN EXCESS OF THE COST OF TRAVEL FROM THE DESIGNATED ADDRESS TO THE PORT OF EMBARKATION SERVING THE OVERSEAS COMMAND CONCERNED. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN PAID $718.56, REPRESENTING REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE TO LAWNDALE AND THENCE TO NEW YORK ON VOUCHERS NUMBERED 1537, DECEMBER 1951, 2973 AND 2361, JANUARY 1952 ACCOUNT OF S.L. ANDERSEN. YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL REIMBURSEMENT TO BE COMPUTED ON A MILEAGE BASIS TO HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA, AND ON AN ACTUAL COST BASIS FOR COMMERCIAL WATER TRANSPORTATION FROM HALIFAX TO ST. JOHNS, NEWFOUNDLAND, WAS DISALLOWED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF OCTOBER 27, 1953.

IN YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW YOU EXPRESS DOUBT AS TO WHETHER, IN THE SETTLEMENT OF YOUR CLAIM, CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO SECOND INDORSEMENT DATED OCTOBER 31, 1951, CONCERNING SIMILAR TRAVEL BY DEPENDENTS OF MASTER SERGEANT MALCOLM JEFFERSON, AND TO THIRD INDORSEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 29, 1952, FROM THE CHIEF OF TRANSPORTATION, IN WHICH IT IS INDICATED THAT ALTHOUGH GOVERNMENT VESSELS TRAVELED BETWEEN NEW YORK AND NEWFOUNDLAND AT THAT TIME, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS SINCE THE TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION AUTHORIZED TRAVEL BY PRIVATELY OWNED CONVEYANCE RATHER THAN BY GOVERNMENT VESSEL.

PARAGRAPH 7002-B, JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, PROVIDES THAT TRANSPORTATION FOR DEPENDENTS FROM THE UNITED STATES TO NEWFOUNDLAND SHALL NOT BE OTHER THAN BY GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT IF AVAILABLE AND ACCEPTABLE TO THE DEPENDENTS, OR BY GOVERNMENT VESSEL IF AVAILABLE. THE CHIEF OF TRANSPORTATION HAS REPORTED, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT AT THE TIME IN QUESTION REGULAR GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE BETWEEN NEW YORK AND NEWFOUNDLAND WAS IN OPERATION, AND THAT GOVERNMENT VESSELS SAILED FOR NEWFOUNDLAND FROM THE NEW YORK PORT OF EMBARKATION AT FREQUENT INTERVALS IN NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 1951, AND IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY, 1952. THIS BEING THE CASE, THE TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS AUTHORIZING TRAVEL BY PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE, PRESUMABLY AT YOUR REQUEST, PROPERLY LIMITED REIMBURSEMENT TO THE AMOUNT TO WHICH YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED HAD THEY TRAVELED FROM NEW YORK TO NEWFOUNDLAND ON A GOVERNMENT VESSEL. WHILE IT MAY BE THAT THE ORDERS AS WRITTEN, ALTHOUGH ADDRESSED TO THE NEW YORK PORT OF EMBARKATION, DID NOT ENTITLE YOU TO GOVERNMENT WATER TRANSPORTATION FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS, IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT PROPER ORDERS FOR WATER TRAVEL COULD HAVE BEEN FURNISHED AND WOULD HAVE BEEN FURNISHED HAD TRANSPORTATION BY GOVERNMENT VESSEL BEEN DESIRED. HENCE, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM.