B-126004, FEB. 21, 1956

B-126004, FEB. 21, 1956

TO MAJOR CARL D. HENNESSY, QMC:

YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 20, 1955, REQUESTS REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 2, 1955, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND OF EXCESS COST OF SHIPPING YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS FROM INDIANTOWN GAP, PENNSYLVANIA, TO PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA, ON SEPTEMBER 17, 1953.

YOUR EFFECTS WERE SHIPPED BY COMMERCIAL VAN, AND SINCE THE WEIGHT EXCEEDED YOUR AUTHORIZED WEIGHT ALLOWANCE AS INCREASED BY FIVE PERCENT TO ALLOW FOR THE WEIGHT OF PACKING FOR VAN SHIPMENT, YOU WERE REQUIRED TO PAY THE EXCESS COST OF $28.57. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOUR EFFECTS PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN SHIPPED FROM SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, TO INDIANTOWN GAP MILITARY ESERVATION; THAT THE TRANSPORTATION OFFICER DID NOT HAVE REGULAR STORAGE SPACE AVAILABLE FOR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS, AND THAT, AS A QUARTERMASTER CORPS OFFICER, YOU WERE ABLE TO USE QUARTERMASTER WAREHOUSE SPACE TO STORE YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS. YOU STATE THAT THE SHIPMENT TO INDIANTOWN GAP MILITARY RESERVATION WAS BY MOTOR FREIGHT; THAT THE EFFECTS HAD BEEN PACKED FOR THAT TYPE OF SHIPMENT, AND THAT WHEN YOU APPLIED FOR SHIPMENT TO PETERSBURG YOU MENTIONED TO A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TRANSPORTATION OFFICER THAT SOME OF THE EFFECTS WERE STILL PACKED. THEREFORE, IT IS YOUR CONTENTION THAT YOUR WEIGHT ALLOWANCE SHOULD BE INCREASED BY 40 PERCENT TO COVER THE WEIGHT OF MATERIALS USED IN PACKING FOR SHIPMENT BY MOTOR FREIGHT. ALSO, YOU EXPRESS THE BELIEF THAT THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH 7C (2), SPECIAL REGULATIONS 35-3260-1, SHOULD BE APPLIED TO RELIEVE YOU OF THE EXCESS COST INCURRED.

SECTION 303 (C) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, 63 STAT. 813, 814, PROVIDES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION (INCLUDING PACKING AND CRATING) OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS TO AND FROM SUCH LOCATIONS AND WITHIN SUCH WEIGHT ALLOWANCES AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARIES, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE COMPARATIVE COSTS OF THE VARIOUS MODES OF TRANSPORTATION. AT THE TIME HERE INVOLVED, JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROMULGATED PURSUANT THERETO PROVIDED (PARAGRAPH 800-1-) THAT WHEN SHIPMENT WAS BY RAIL OR MOTOR FREIGHT THE WEIGHT ALLOWANCE WOULD BE INCREASED BY 25 PERCENT TO COVER THE WEIGHT OF MATERIALS USED IN PACKING FOR FREIGHTSHIPMENT, AND THAT WHEN THE SHIPMENT WAS BY VAN THE ALLOWANCE WOULD BE INCREASED BY FIVE PERCENT. THUS, THE PERCENTAGE BY WHICH THE AUTHORIZED WEIGHT ALLOWANCE MAY BE INCREASED TO ALLOW FOR THE WEIGHT OF PACKING MATERIALS IS DETERMINED BY THE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION ACTUALLY USED. SINCE YOUR EFFECTS WERE SHIPPED BY VAN THERE IS NO BASIS UNDER CONTROLLING REGULATIONS FOR INCREASING THE ALLOWANCE AS FOR SHIPMENT BY MOTOR FREIGHT.

PARAGRAPH 8052-2, JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, IN EFFECT AT THE TIME HERE INVOLVED, PROVIDED THAT SHIPMENT MAY BE MADE BY THE VARIOUS MODES OF TRANSPORTATION WITHOUT REGARD TO COMPARATIVE COSTS; THAT THE SHIPPING OFFICER WILL SELECT THE MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION WHICH IN HIS JUDGMENT WILL BEST SERVE THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. IN CONFORMITY THEREWITH, THE REGULATION MENTIONED IN YOUR LETTER PROVIDES THAT THE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION FOR A GIVEN SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WILL BE DESIGNATED BY THE TRANSPORTATION OFFICER; THAT THE MODE ACTUALLY EMPLOYED AND THE CARRIER USED WILL BE ACCEPTED AS THE APPROVED SELECTION OF THE TRANSPORTATION OFFICER, AND THAT THE OWNER WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR PAYMENT OF EXCESS COST AS A RESULT OF SUCH SELECTION. IN YOUR CASE, THE TRANSPORTATION OFFICER SELECTED VAN AS THE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION BEST SUITED FOR THE SHIPMENT. YOU WERE NOT CHARGED EXCESS COST BY REASON OF THAT MODE OF SHIPMENT BEING MORE COSTLY THAN SOME OTHER MODE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN USED. THEREFORE, THE REGULATION ON WHICH YOU RELY AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM.

SINCE THE WEIGHT OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS AS SHIPPED EXCEEDED YOUR AUTHORIZED WEIGHT ALLOWANCE PLUS THE AUTHORIZED PERCENTAGE INCREASE FOR THE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION USED, YOU WERE PROPERLY CHARGED WITH THE EXCESS COST INCURRED. ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 2, 1955, IS SUSTAINED.