B-119563, JUL 14, 1954

B-119563, JUL 14, 1954

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

LIEUTENANT COMMANDER JOHN BUDAY, USN:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 16, 1954, REQUESTING REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT DATED JANUARY 5, 1954, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR $129.98 FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF SHIPPING YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS FROM SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, TO CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, IN FEBRUARY 1953.

BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMANDER, NAVAL FORCES, FAR EAST, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE ORDERS FROM THE CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL, DATED OCTOBER 17, 1952, YOU WERE DETACHED FROM DUTY ON THE STAFF OF THE COMMANDER NAVAL FORCES, FAR EAST, AND ORDERED TO PROCEED TO A PORT IN THE UNITED STATES AND UPON ARRIVAL FURTHER PROCEED TO CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND REPORT TO THE COMMANDING OFFICER, NAVAL BASE, FOR DUTY AS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. IN THE APPLICATION ON NAV S AND A FORM 34, DATED NOVEMBER 22, 1952, YOU REQUESTED SHIPMENT OF YOUR EFFECTS FROM "NSD NAVY #3923" TO "SO, NSD SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 'HOLD FOR OWNER'". THE FIRST ENDORSEMENT ON THE FORM FOR THE SHIPMENT OF YOUR EFFECTS WAS EXECUTED ON THE SAME DAY BY THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS OFFICER, LIEUTENANT L. R. ALLAN, AND HE ALSO ISSUED ON THAT DAY A NAVY BILL OF LADING NUMBERED WHIZ B/L 6238-53 ON WHICH THERE APPEARED THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS FOR SHIPPING "ULT. DEST: SO, NSD SAN DIEGO, CALIF." WITH THE CONSIGNEE SHOWN AS SUPPLY OFFICER, FIRST U.S. NAVY PORT OF ENTRY FOR FURTHER TRANSPORTATION.

IT APPEARS THAT YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WEIGHING 932 POUNDS WERE SHIPPED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE TO NAVAL SUPPLY DEPOT, SAN PEDRO, CALIFORNIA, THENCE TO NAVAL SUPPLY DEPOT, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, AFTER WHICH YOU SHIPPED THE EFFECTS AT PERSONAL EXPENSE OF $129.98 FROM SAN DIEGO TO CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, FOR WHICH YOU NOW CLAIM REIMBURSEMENT. THE BASIS OF YOUR CLAIM IS THAT YOU INTENDED TO CONSIGN THE EFFECTS TO SAN DIEGO MERELY AS A PORT OF ENTRY; THAT YOU DID NOT HAVE ANY INTENTION TO USE SUCH EFFECTS AT SAN DIEGO; THAT YOU WERE MISINFORMED "TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY COULD BE TRANS- SHIPPED AND NOT RE SHIPPED TO CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA"; AND THAT PARAGRAPH 8013-2, JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, PERMITS RESHIPMENT AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE WHEN EFFECTS HAVE BEEN IMPROPERLY CONSIGNED.

PARAGRAPH 8013-1, JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, PROVIDES, INSOFAR AS HERE PERTINENT, THAT AUTHORITY FOR SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE EXTENDS ONLY TO THE THROUGH SHIPMENT TO AUTHORIZED ULTIMATE DESTINATION OF THE SAME LOT OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS AND THAT SHIPMENT MAY NOT BE MADE FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE MEMBER TO SOME OTHER PLACE FOR RESHIPMENT LATER TO SUCH AUTHORIZED ULTIMATE DESTINATION. PARAGRAPH 8013- 2 OF SUCH REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT WHERE HOUSEHOLD GOODS HAVE BEEN IMPROPERLY SHIPPED, NOT BECAUSE OF FAULT OF THE MEMBER, THEY MAY BE FORWARDED TO THE PROPER DESTINATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE UPON APPROVAL OF THE SERVICE CONCERNED.

THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR ALLEGATION OF IMPROPER SHIPMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT SINCE THE GOVERNMENT MADE SHIPMENT TO SAN DIEGO, THE POINT DESIGNATED BY YOU, AND HAS BORNE THE EXPENSE. CONSEQUENTLY, THERE WAS NO IMPROPER SHIPMENT AS TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT BE LIABLE FOR ADDITIONAL EXPENSE UNDER PARAGRAPH 8013-2 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS. WITH REGARD TO WHETHER PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT CLAIMED WOULD BE PROHIBITED BY PARAGRAPH 8013-1 OF SUCH REGULATIONS, THE COMMANDING OFFICER AT YOUR FORMER STATION OVERSEAS REPORTED IN HIS LETTER OF MAY 25, 1953, TO THE CHIEF, BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS, THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED THAT IT WAS THE INTENT TO NAME SAN DIEGO AS A TRANSHIPMENT POINT FOR FURTHER SHIPMENT AND NOT AS A DESTINATION.

WHILE IT MAY BE THAT YOU INTENDED TO NAME SAN DIEGO AS A PORT OF ENTRY ONLY, SINCE YOU HAD NO KNOWLEDGE THAT THE SHIP WHICH WAS TO CARRY YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WOULD USE SAN DIEGO AS THE PORT OF ENTRY, YOU SHOULD HAVE INDICATED THAT YOU WANTED SHIPMENT TO THE SUPPLY OFFICER AT THE FIRST PORT OF ENTRY TO BE HELD THERE PENDING YOUR DECISION AS TO WHERE YOU WANTED YOUR EFFECTS TO BE SENT. HOWEVER, YOU WERE ENTITLED TO HAVE YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS TRANSPORTED TO YOUR NEW DUTY STATION UPON A PROPER REQUEST AND, IN VIEW OF THE APPARENT MISUNDERSTANDING AS TO THE PROBABLE PORT OF ENTRY OF THE VESSEL CARRYING YOUR EFFECTS, IT PROPERLY MAY BE CONCLUDED THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE AMOUNT WHICH IT WOULD HAVE COST THE GOVERNMENT TO SHIP YOUR EFFECTS FROM SAN PEDRO, CALIFORNIA, TO CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, LESS THE COST OF SHIPMENT FROM SAN PEDRO TO SAN DIEGO.

A SETTLEMENT FOR THE AMOUNT FOUND DUE ON THAT BASIS WILL ISSUE IN DUE COURSE.