B-125132, NOV. 15, 1955
Highlights
THIS INDEBTEDNESS WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 3. IN THAT LETTER WE POINTED OUT THE LAW AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE MATTER AND THE REASONS WHY YOU ARE INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES FOR TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENTS. YOU NOW SAY THAT THE ORDERS BY WHICH YOU WERE CALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY FOR TWELVE MONTHS EFFECTIVE AUGUST 28. ON SUCH BASIS YOU URGE THAT YOU ARE NOT INDEBTED TO THE GOVERNMENT. THE DATE OF SEPARATION SO SHOWN IS INEXACT AND TENTATIVE AND FURTHER ORDERS. ARE NECESSARY TO EFFECT RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY. THE PROVISION IN THE REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE DEPARTURE OF DEPENDENTS FROM THE OLD STATION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ORDERS CONTEMPLATES DEPARTURE DURING THE COMPARATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME WHICH MAY ELAPSE BETWEEN THE TIME OF A DETERMINATION TO ORDER A MEMBER TO MAKE A CHANGE OF STATION AND THE DATE ON WHICH ORDERS DIRECTING SUCH CHANGE OF STATION ARE ISSUED.
B-125132, NOV. 15, 1955
TO MR. ROBERT G. TABBERT:
YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 11, 1955, REQUESTED FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM FOR REFUND OF $130.80 PAID TO YOU IN SEPTEMBER 1951 AS REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, TO RIVER FOREST, ILLINOIS, IN MAY 1951, PRIOR TO YOUR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY AS TECHNICAL SERGEANT, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, BY ORDERS DATED AUGUST 17, 1951.
THIS INDEBTEDNESS WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 3, 1955, TO HONORABLE EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, UNITED STATES SENATE, A COPY OF WHICH HE APPARENTLY FORWARDED TO YOU. IN THAT LETTER WE POINTED OUT THE LAW AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE MATTER AND THE REASONS WHY YOU ARE INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES FOR TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENTS. YOU NOW SAY THAT THE ORDERS BY WHICH YOU WERE CALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY FOR TWELVE MONTHS EFFECTIVE AUGUST 28, 1950, WHICH STATED THAT YOU WOULD BE RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY SO AS TO ARRIVE AT RIVER FOREST NOT LATER THAN AUGUST 28, 1951, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A BASIS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE. ON SUCH BASIS YOU URGE THAT YOU ARE NOT INDEBTED TO THE GOVERNMENT.
THE FACT THAT ORDERS TO EXTENDED ACTIVE DUTY INDICATE THE APPROXIMATE DATE OF SEPARATION DOES NOT MAKE THEM ORDERS FOR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY. THE DATE OF SEPARATION SO SHOWN IS INEXACT AND TENTATIVE AND FURTHER ORDERS, SUCH AS THE ORDERS OF AUGUST 17, 1951, IN YOUR CASE, ARE NECESSARY TO EFFECT RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY. FURTHER, THE PROVISION IN THE REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE DEPARTURE OF DEPENDENTS FROM THE OLD STATION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ORDERS CONTEMPLATES DEPARTURE DURING THE COMPARATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME WHICH MAY ELAPSE BETWEEN THE TIME OF A DETERMINATION TO ORDER A MEMBER TO MAKE A CHANGE OF STATION AND THE DATE ON WHICH ORDERS DIRECTING SUCH CHANGE OF STATION ARE ISSUED. MERE GENERAL INFORMATION AS TO THE TIME OF EVENTUAL RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY, WHICH NOT INFREQUENTLY IS CONTAINED IN THE ORDER TO ACTIVE DUTY ITSELF, IS INSUFFICIENT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE REGULATIONS.
YOU IN FACT WERE RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY ON AUGUST 27, 1951, UNDER ORDERS DATED AUGUST 17, 1951. SINCE YOUR DEPENDENTS RETURNED TO YOUR HOME IN ILLINOIS LONG BEFORE YOUR ORDERED RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY YOU AS REIMBURSEMENT FOR THEIR TRAVEL SHOULD BE REFUNDED TO THE UNITED STATES.