B-128876, SEP. 10, 1956

B-128876: Sep 10, 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 DIRECTED TO REPORT TO THE OFFICER IN CHARGE. THOSE ORDERS ALSO DIRECTED THAT UPON COMPLETION OF THE TEMPORARY DUTY INDICATED YOU WERE TO REPORT TO THE OFFICER IN CHARGE. WERE AMENDED BY BUPERS DISPATCH DATED MAY 26. YOUR CLAIM FOR PER DIEM FOR THE PERIOD OF THAT DUTY WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT BROOKLYN. WAS YOUR PERMANENT DUTY STATION UNTIL YOUR DEPARTURE FOR BREMERTON. IT ALSO IS STATED THAT IT WAS NEVER THE INTENTION OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL THAT YOU BE ASSIGNED TO DUTY AT THE NAVY SHIPS STORE OFFICE. SUCH WORDING WAS INCLUDED ERRONEOUSLY. ARE INCOMPLETE OR AMBIGUOUS OR WHERE A PROVISION WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO BE INCLUDED IN AN ORDER BUT WAS OMITTED THROUGH ERROR OR INADVERTENCE IN PREPARING SUCH ORDER.

B-128876, SEP. 10, 1956

TO LIEUTENANT (JG) BRUNO A. POMPONIO:

YOUR LETTER OF JULY 25, 1956, REQUESTS REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT DATED MAY 4, 1955, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR PER DIEM FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 18 TO MAY 25, 1953.

BY ORDERS OF MARCH 19, 1953, FROM THE CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL, YOU WERE DIRECTED TO REPORT TO THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, NAVY SHIPS STORE OFFICE, NAVAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES, NEW YORK, FOR TEMPORARY DUTY UNDER INSTRUCTION FOR A PERIOD OF ABOUT SIX WEEKS. THOSE ORDERS ALSO DIRECTED THAT UPON COMPLETION OF THE TEMPORARY DUTY INDICATED YOU WERE TO REPORT TO THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, NAVY SHIPS STORE OFFICE, NAVAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES, NEW YORK, FOR DUTY. THE ORDERS OF MARCH 19, 1953, WERE AMENDED BY BUPERS DISPATCH DATED MAY 26, 1953, WHICH DIRECTED YOU TO PROCEED UPON COMPLETION OF TEMPORARY DUTY UNDER INSTRUCTION TO NAVAL BARRACKS, NAVAL BASE, BREMERTON, WASHINGTON.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOU PERFORMED THE ORDERED DUTY AT NEW YORK, NEW YORK. YOUR CLAIM FOR PER DIEM FOR THE PERIOD OF THAT DUTY WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, WAS YOUR PERMANENT DUTY STATION UNTIL YOUR DEPARTURE FOR BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, PURSUANT TO THE BUPERS DISPATCH OF MAY 26, 1953. JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PRECLUDE PAYMENT OF PER DIEM ALLOWANCES FOR TRAVEL OR PERMANENT DUTY PERFORMED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PERMANENT DUTY STATION.

IN YOUR LETTER YOU REFER TO A LETTER DATED JANUARY 19, 1956, FROM THE CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL. THIS LETTER PURPORTS TO CANCEL PARAGRAPH 2 OF YOUR ORDERS OF MARCH 19, 1953, WHICH ESTABLISHED NEW YORK AS YOUR PERMANENT DUTY STATION. IT ALSO IS STATED THAT IT WAS NEVER THE INTENTION OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL THAT YOU BE ASSIGNED TO DUTY AT THE NAVY SHIPS STORE OFFICE, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, AND SUCH WORDING WAS INCLUDED ERRONEOUSLY.

IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT WHERE TRAVEL ORDERS, ON THEIR FACE, ARE INCOMPLETE OR AMBIGUOUS OR WHERE A PROVISION WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO BE INCLUDED IN AN ORDER BUT WAS OMITTED THROUGH ERROR OR INADVERTENCE IN PREPARING SUCH ORDER, THE ORDER MAY BE CORRECTED OR COMPLETED TO SHOW THE ORIGINAL INTENT. 24 COMP. GEN. 439. HOWEVER, NO SUCH ELEMENTS APPEAR IN YOUR CASE. YOUR ORDERS OF MARCH 19, 1953, APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 4209 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME. WHILE THIS REGULATION PURPORTED TO PERMIT A MEMBER TO RECEIVE PER DIEM ALLOWANCES EVEN THOUGH HIS TEMPORARY DUTY STATION WAS CHANGED TO HIS PERMANENT STATION PROVIDED THE PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION OF STATION ORDERS BECAME EFFECTIVE AT A LATER DATE, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT NO PER DIEM ACCRUES UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. 34 COMP. GEN. 427. SEE ALSO SECTION 303 (A) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, 63 STAT. 813. YOUR ORDERS WERE COMPLETE AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND THEY ASSIGNED YOU TO PERMANENT DUTY AT NEW YORK AFTER COMPLETION OF YOUR ASSIGNED TEMPORARY DUTY IN NEW YORK. THE LETTER OF JANUARY 19, 1956, FROM THE CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL, CANNOT SERVE AS A LEGAL BASIS TO CHANGE YOUR RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AS FIXED UNDER YOUR ORIGINAL ORDERS OF MARCH 19, 1953. YOU WERE NOT AWAY FROM YOUR DESIGNATED POST OF DUTY DURING THE PERIOD OF YOUR CLAIM AND CONSEQUENTLY, CANNOT PROPERLY BE CONSIDERED ENTITLED TO PER DIEM.