B-120426, JUL 9, 1954

B-120426, JUL 9, 1954

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

JAMES H. MORRISON, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 4, 1954, ADDRESSED TO THE COMMANDANT, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS; WHICH WAS REFERRED HERE; RELATIVE TO THE INDEBTEDNESS TO THE UNITED STATES OF MR. CLYDE P. HAMILTON, 224D POCAHONTAS STREET, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA, AS EVIDENCED BY NOTICE OF EXCEPTION ISSUED BY THIS OFFICE AGAINST A PAYMENT MADE TO HIM AS REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE TRAVEL OF HIS DEPENDENTS FROM BOGALUSA, LOUISIANA, TO SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, INCIDENT TO HIS SERVICE AS TECHNICAL SERGEANT, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS RESERVE.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT BY ORDERS DATED OCTOBER 29, 1951, MR. HAMILTON WAS ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY AS TECHNICAL SERGEANT, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS RESERVE, FROM HIS HOME, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA, AND ASSIGNED TO DUTY AT MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA; THAT MARINE CORPS GENERAL ORDER NO. 104, WHICH ASSIGNED DATES OF RELEASE OF RESERVISTS FROM ACTIVE DUTY WAS PUBLISHED TO THE PERSONNEL CONCERNED, INCLUDING SERGEANT HAMILTON, ON FEBRUARY 13, 1952; AND THAT BY ORDERS DATED NOVEMBER 22, 1952, HE WAS DETACHED FROM DUTY AT SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, AND DIRECTED TO PROCEED TO HIS HOME, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA, FOR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY NOT LATER THAN DECEMBER 4, 1952, AS AUTHORIZED BY SAID MARINE CORPS GENERAL ORDER NO. 104. MR. HAMILTON STATES THAT HIS DEPENDENTS (WIFE AND TWO CHILDREN AGES 8 AND 10) TRAVELED AT PERSONAL EXPENSE FROM BOGALUSA, LOUISIANA, TO SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, BETWEEN JUNE 5 AND 9, 1952, AND FROM THE LATTER PLACE TO NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, BETWEEN AUGUST 4 AND 6, 1952. ON VOUCHER NO. 14041, JUNE 1952 ACCOUNTS OF T.E. MURPHY, SYMBOL 53-315, HE WAS PAID $230.76 FOR THE TRAVEL OF HIS DEPENDENTS FROM BOGALUSA, LOUISIANA, TO SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA. CREDIT FOR THE AMOUNT OF $230.76 SO PAID WAS SUSPENDED IN THE AUDIT OF THE DISBURSING OFFICER'S ACCOUNT FOR THE REASON THAT REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS MERELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISITING A MEMBER IN THE UNIFORMED SERVICE IS NOT ALLOWABLE. ALSO, BY SETTLEMENT DATED APRIL 27, 1954, THE CLAIMS DIVISION OF THIS OFFICE DISALLOWED MR. HAMILTON'S CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE TRAVEL OF HIS DEPENDENTS FROM SANTA ANA TO NEW ORLEANS.

SECTION 303(C) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, 63 STAT. 814, PROVIDES THAT UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS AND TO AND FROM SUCH LOCATIONS AS THE SECRETARIES CONCERNED MAY PRESCRIBE, MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES WHEN ORDERED TO MAKE A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION SHALL BE ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS OR TO REIMBURSEMENT THEREFOR, OR TO A MONETARY ALLOWANCE IN LIEU OF TRANSPORTATION IN KIND. PARAGRAPH 7000-1 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO THAT AUTHORITY, PROVIDES THAT MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES ARE ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE UPON PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION, WHICH INCLUDES THE CHANGE FROM HOME TO FIRST STATION AND FROM LAST STATION TO HOME. HOWEVER, TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE WITHIN THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF SAID LAW AND REGULATIONS UNLESS SUCH TRAVEL ACTUALLY IS INCIDENT TO A CHANGE OF RESIDENCE AND INCIDENT TO A CHANGE OF STATION OF THE MEMBER IN THE UNIFORMED SERVICE. TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSES IS NOT AUTHORIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MERELY VISITING THE SERVICEMAN. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ALTHOUGH THE MEMBER WAS ORDERED TO DUTY AT SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, BY ORDERS DATED OCTOBER 29, 1951, AND REPORTED THERE ON DECEMBER 3, 1951, HIS DEPENDENTS DID NOT TRAVEL THERE UNTIL JUNE 1952. FROM THE FACT OF THE DELAY ON THE PART OF THE DEPENDENTS IN PERFORMING TRAVEL TO CLAIMANT'S STATION AND THE FURTHER FACT THAT AFTER A COMPARATIVELY BRIEF INTERVAL, AND LONG BEFORE ORDERS ACTUALLY RELEASING CLAIMANT FROM ACTIVE DUTY WERE ISSUED, THEY RETURNED TO THE POINT AT WHICH TRAVEL COMMENCED, IT SEEMS SELF-EVIDENT THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION AT ANY TIME THAT THE DEPENDENTS WOULD TAKE UP RESIDENCE AT CLAIMANT'S DUTY STATION AND THAT THE TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED FOR NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN VISITING. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT MUST BE HELD THAT NO RIGHT TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE TRAVEL IN QUESTION ACCRUED UNDER THE APPLICABLE LAW AND REGULATIONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE EXCEPTION AS TAKEN WAS REQUIRED BY LAW AND IS CORRECT.

I TRUST THAT THIS INFORMATION WILL SUFFICIENTLY SERVE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR INQUIRY.