B-124506, OCT. 3, 1955

B-124506: Oct 3, 1955

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

USN: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 16. YOU WERE DIRECTED TO PROCEED TO GREEN COVE SPRINGS AND REPORT THERE FOR DUTY. YOU WERE AUTHORIZED TO DELAY 20 DAYS IN REPORTING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDERS. YOUR DUTY ASSIGNMENT AT GREEN COVE SPRINGS WAS CHANGED BY ORDERS DATED MARCH 6. WERE MARRIED AT RENO. WHO AT THAT TIME WAS IN AN ACTIVE DUTY STATUS. NAVY WAS ACCEPTED EFFECTIVE ON APRIL 3. SHE WAS PAID MILEAGE INCIDENT TO HER SEPARATION FROM THE SERVICE FROM HER LAST DUTY STATION AT OAKLAND. REGULATIONS PROMULGATED UNDER THAT AUTHORITY ARE CONTAINED IN THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS. PARAGRAPH 7000 OF THOSE REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES ARE ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE UPON A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED FROM THE OLD TO THE NEW STATION OR BETWEEN POINTS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED IN THE REGULATIONS.

B-124506, OCT. 3, 1955

TO COMMANDER LLOYD K. HOFFMAN, USN:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 16, 1955, RECEIVED BY INDORSEMENT OF THE COMMANDING OFFICER, U.S. NAVAL STATION, GREEN COVE SPRINGS, FLORIDA, REQUESTING REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT DATED DECEMBER 30, 1954, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR A MONETARY ALLOWANCE FOR YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL FROM CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, TO GREEN COVE SPRINGS INCIDENT TO YOUR CHANGE OF STATION FROM GUAM, MARIANA ISLANDS, TO GREEN COVE SPRINGS UNDER ORDERS OF JANUARY 22, 1953.

YOUR ORDERS OF JANUARY 22, 1953, PROVIDED FOR YOUR DETACHMENT FROM DUTY AT GUAM, WHEN DIRECTED, AND YOU WERE DIRECTED TO PROCEED TO GREEN COVE SPRINGS AND REPORT THERE FOR DUTY. YOU WERE AUTHORIZED TO DELAY 20 DAYS IN REPORTING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDERS, THE DELAY TO COUNT AS LEAVE. YOUR DUTY ASSIGNMENT AT GREEN COVE SPRINGS WAS CHANGED BY ORDERS DATED MARCH 6, 1953. AFTER YOUR DETACHMENT FROM DUTY AT GUAM ON JANUARY 29, AND WERE MARRIED AT RENO, NEVADA, ON FEBRUARY 3, 1953, TO LIEUTENANT (JG) GLENNA B. CAMPBELL, USN, WHO AT THAT TIME WAS IN AN ACTIVE DUTY STATUS. YOUR REPORTED TO YOUR NEW DUTY STATION AT GREEN COVE SPRINGS ON MARCH 6, 1953. YOUR WIFE'S RESIGNATION FROM THE U.S. NAVY WAS ACCEPTED EFFECTIVE ON APRIL 3, 1953, AND SHE WAS PAID MILEAGE INCIDENT TO HER SEPARATION FROM THE SERVICE FROM HER LAST DUTY STATION AT OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, TO HER HOME OF RECORD, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS. IT APPEARS THAT SHE PERFORMED TRAVEL FROM OAKLAND TO GREEN COVE SPRINGS ON APRIL 4, 1953.

SECTION 303/C) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, 63 STAT. 814, PROVIDES THAT UNDER REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARIES CONCERNED MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES WHEN ORDERED TO MAKE A CHANGE OF PERMANENT STATION SHALL BE ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION FOR DEPENDENTS OR TO REIMBURSEMENT THEREFOR, OR TO A MONETARY ALLOWANCE IN LIEU OF SUCH TRANSPORTATION. REGULATIONS PROMULGATED UNDER THAT AUTHORITY ARE CONTAINED IN THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS. PARAGRAPH 7000 OF THOSE REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES ARE ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE UPON A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED FROM THE OLD TO THE NEW STATION OR BETWEEN POINTS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED IN THE REGULATIONS. AS AN EXCEPTION TO THAT AUTHORIZATION PARAGRAPH 7000 9 PROVIDES, HOWEVER, THAT TRANSPORTATION IS NOT AUTHORIZED "WHEN DEPENDENT IS A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICE ON ACTIVE DUTY ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDERS.' YOU CONTEND THAT SUCH RESTRICTIVE PROVISION SHOULD NOT APPLY IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL SINCE SHE WAS NOT A MEMBER OF A UNIFORMED SERVICE ON ACTIVE DUTY WHEN THE TRAVEL IN QUESTION ACTUALLY WAS PERFORMED.

THE CITED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 303/C) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949 AUTHORIZE THE PROMULGATION OF REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE. THOSE REGULATIONS MAY NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE LAW (32 COMP. GEN. 410) BUT THERE WOULD BE NO BASIS FOR GRANTING AN EXCEPTION IN A PARTICULAR CASE FROM THE EFFECT OF AN OTHERWISE VALID REGULATION. PARAGRAPH 7000-9 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS CLEARLY PROHIBITS TRANSPORTATION OF A DEPENDENT IF THAT DEPENDENT IS A MEMBER OF THE MILITARY SERVICE ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDERS. YOUR WIFE WAS A MEMBER OF THE MILITARY SERVICE ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF YOUR ORDERS (SEE PARAGRAPH 3003, JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS) AND HENCE THAT REGULATION BECOMES PERTINENT. THE REGULATION DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE IN QUESTION ACTUALLY WAS PERFORMED. SUBJECT TO ATTACK AS BEING INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAW AND IT MUST BE CONSIDERED THEREFORE, THAT NO AUTHORITY EXISTS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR WIFE AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE FOR THE TRAVEL IN QUESTION UNDER THE ORDERS OF JANUARY 22, 1953, ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF DECEMBER 30, 1954, IS SUSTAINED.