B-126455, MAR. 15, 1956

B-126455: Mar 15, 1956

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

YOU WERE DETACHED FROM DUTY AT NORFOLK. YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS WERE PACKED. YOU WERE CHARGED WITH THE EXCESS COST. WHICH AMOUNT WAS CHECKED FROM YOUR PAY. UPON RECOMPUTATION OF THE EXCESS COST YOU WERE ALLOWED $40.70 BY THE SETTLEMENT MENTIONED ABOVE. THE BALANCE OR $271.35 WAS DISALLOWED BY THAT SETTLEMENT FOR THE REASONS STATED. YOU WERE ADVISED IN DETAIL BY OFFICE LETTER OF AUGUST 23. AS TO THE BASIS ON WHICH THE REFUND OF $40.70 WAS COMPUTED. IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU REFER TO A SIMILAR CLAIM WHICH YOU SAY YOU UNDERSTAND IS UNDER CONSIDERATION HERE. APPARENTLY YOU ARE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE DISPOSITION OF THAT CLAIM IS THAT THE WEIGHT OF THE MATERIALS USED IN PACKING AND CRATING YOUR EFFECTS EXCEEDED THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE ALLOWED FOR PACKING AND CRATING FOR THE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION UTILIZED.

B-126455, MAR. 15, 1956

TO MR. FREDERICK R. AXELSON:

YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 6, 1955, REQUESTS REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT OF JUNE 17, 1955, WHICH DISALLOWED THE MAJOR PORTION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE AMOUNT COLLECTED FROM YOU AS THE EXCESS COST OF PACKING, CRATING, AND SHIPPING YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WHILE SERVING AS LIEUTENANT COMMANDER, UNITED STATES NAVAL RESERVE.

BY ORDERS DATED JANUARY 7, 1953, YOU WERE DETACHED FROM DUTY AT NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, AND TRANSFERRED TO THE CANAL ZONE, FOR DUTY. AT YOUR REQUEST, YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS WERE PACKED, CRATED, AND SHIPPED IN THREE LOTS FROM CHURCHLAND, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, AND PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, TO (1) NONTEMPORARY STORAGE AT MECHANICSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA, (2) YOUR STATION, RODMAN, CANAL ZONE, AND (3) YOUR HOME OF RECORD, DUBOIS, PENNSYLVANIA. SINCE THE WEIGHT OF THE EFFECTS SHIPPED EXCEEDED YOUR AUTHORIZED WEIGHT ALLOWANCE, YOU WERE CHARGED WITH THE EXCESS COST, OR $312.05, WHICH AMOUNT WAS CHECKED FROM YOUR PAY. UPON RECOMPUTATION OF THE EXCESS COST YOU WERE ALLOWED $40.70 BY THE SETTLEMENT MENTIONED ABOVE. THE BALANCE OR $271.35 WAS DISALLOWED BY THAT SETTLEMENT FOR THE REASONS STATED. IN RESPONSE TO YOUR REQUEST OF JULY 25, 1955, YOU WERE ADVISED IN DETAIL BY OFFICE LETTER OF AUGUST 23, 1955, AS TO THE BASIS ON WHICH THE REFUND OF $40.70 WAS COMPUTED. IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU REFER TO A SIMILAR CLAIM WHICH YOU SAY YOU UNDERSTAND IS UNDER CONSIDERATION HERE. APPARENTLY YOU ARE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE DISPOSITION OF THAT CLAIM IS THAT THE WEIGHT OF THE MATERIALS USED IN PACKING AND CRATING YOUR EFFECTS EXCEEDED THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE ALLOWED FOR PACKING AND CRATING FOR THE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION UTILIZED.

PARAGRAPH 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. JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME HERE INVOLVED, PROVIDE (PARAGRAPH 8001) FOR PERCENTAGE INCREASES TO COVER THE WEIGHT OF MATERIALS USED IN PACKING FOR VARIOUS MODES OF TRANSPORTATION, AND A METHOD OF COMPUTING THE NET WEIGHT WHEN ESPECIALLY DESIGNED CONTAINERS ARE USED. THE REGULATIONS FURTHER PROVIDE (SAME PARAGRAPH) THAT, WITH ORDINARY PACKING AND CRATING METHODS, HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS OF SERVICE PERSONNEL NOT IN EXCESS OF THE WEIGHT LIMITS PRESCRIBED MAY BE SHIPPED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE. WEIGHT ALLOWANCES, DESIGNATED AS ACTUAL NET WEIGHTS AUTHORIZED FOR SHIPMENT, ARE SET FORTH FOR VARIOUS RANKS AND GRADES, AND THE PROVISION FOR PERCENTAGE INCREASE IS TO ALLOW FOR THE PACKING AND CRATING. THE REGULATIONS CONTEMPLATE THE SHIPMENT AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS, AS PACKED FOR SHIPMENT NOT TO EXCEED AN OVER-ALL WEIGHT ALLOWANCE OF WHICH THE NET WEIGHT OF THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS IS BUT ONE COMPONENT PART. THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE ALLOWED FOR PACKING AND CRATING IS NOT INTENDED TO MATCH, POUND FOR POUND, THE ACTUAL WEIGHT OF THE MATERIALS USED IN PACKING AND CRATING. THAT INCREASE IS GENERALLY ADEQUATE, BUT, AT LEAST TO SOME EXTENT, THE INCREASE IN WEIGHT CAUSED BY PACKING AND CRATING DEPENDS UPON THE CHARACTER OF THE EFFECTS SHIPPED. WEIGHTS IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM OVER-ALL WEIGHT FIXED BY THE REGULATIONS PROPERLY ARE CHARGEABLE TO THE SHIPPER. THE REGULATIONS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME HERE INVOLVED MAKE NO PROVISION FOR AN ADJUSTMENT ON THE BASIS THAT THE PACKING AND CRATING USED EXCEEDED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PARTICULAR SHIPMENT. SUCH BEING THE CASE, THE SETTLEMENT OF JUNE 17, 1955, WAS CORRECT AND IS SUSTAINED.

THE SIMILAR CLAIM TO WHICH YOU REFER WAS DISALLOWED IN ITS ENTIRE AMOUNT, AND SUCH ACTION WAS SUSTAINED BY OUR DECISION B-124899, DATED NOVEMBER 14, 1955, A COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED.