B-120442, SEP 13, 1954

B-120442: Sep 13, 1954

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 MAY 13. 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 EXPEDIANCY 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 THE OLD DUTY STATION TO A PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES.

B-120442, SEP 13, 1954

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

CAPTAIN JAMES M. ECHOLS, USAF:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 13, 1954, REQUESTING REVIEW OF A SETTLEMENT DATED APRIL 14, 1954, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENT (WIFE) AT PERSONAL EXPENSE FROM JONESBORO, ARKANSAS, TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, AND THENCE BY COMMERCIAL VESSEL TO TOKYO, JAPAN, BETWEEN THE DATES AUGUST 12 AND SEPTEMBER 9, 1952, INCIDENT TO ORDERS DATED JANUARY 14 AND FEBRUARY 20, 1952, TRANSFERRING YOU FROM DUTY AT DAYTON, OHIO, 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, WHEN GENERAL HEADQUARTERS, FAR EAST COMMAND, ISSUED A MESSAGE LIFTING THE SUSPENSION OF DEPENDENT TRAVEL TO JAPAN AND 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 EXPEDIANCY 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, 813, WAS TO FURNISH ELIGIBLE PERSONNEL ORDERED TO OVERSEAS DUTY TRANSPORTATION FOR THEIR DEPENDENTS FROM THE 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 DEPENDENT TO TRAVEL TO YOUR OVERSEAS STATION, SUCH PERMISSION WAS MERELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING YOUR DEPENDENT TO SECURE A PASSPORT AND VISA FOR HER TRAVEL. TRANSPORTATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE WAS AVAILABLE FOR DEPENDENTS OF MILITARY PERSONNAL ON DUTY IN JAPAN AND WOULD HAVE BEEN FURNISHED YOUR WIFE AT NO COST TO YOU UNDER THE PRIORITY SYSTEM HAD SHE AWAITED SUCH TRANSPORTATION. HENCE, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS UPON WHICH YOU MAY BE REIMBURSED FOR THE COST OF YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL BY COMMERCIAL MEANS FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO JAPAN. HOWEVER, SINCE YOU HAD PROCEEDED TO JAPAN ON A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION AND YOUR WIFE WAS LATER PERMITTED TO JOIN YOU AT YOUR NEW STATION, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT ON A MILEAGE BASIS AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE REGULATIONS FOR THE DISTANCE FROM JONESBORO, ARKANSAS, TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, THE PLACE FROM WHICH GOVERNMENT WATER TRANSPORTATION WOULD HAVE BEEN FURNISHED.

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