B-129182, OCT. 3, 1956

B-129182: Oct 3, 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 OF THE SAME ACTIVITY FOR DUTY. YOU WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE NAVAL ORDNANCE TEST STATION. WAS YOUR PERMANENT DUTY STATION UNTIL YOUR DEPARTURE FOR INYOKERN. 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 TRAVEL ORDERS BUT WAS OMITTED THROUGH ERROR OR INADVERTENCE IN PREPARING SUCH ORDERS.

B-129182, OCT. 3, 1956

TO LIEUTENANT (JG) JAMES D. ETHRIDGE:

YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 18, 1956, REQUESTS REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT DATED JULY 18, 1956, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR PER DIEM FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 15 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1953.

BY ORDERS OF JULY 10, 1953, AS AMENDED BY ORDERS OF AUGUST 11, 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, BROOKLYN, 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 OF THE SAME ACTIVITY FOR DUTY. BY PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS DATED OCTOBER 1, 1953, YOU WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE NAVAL ORDNANCE TEST STATION, INYOKERN, CALIFORNIA, FOR DUTY AS ASSISTANT NAVY EXCHANGE OFFICER.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOU PERFORMED THE ORDERED DUTY IN BROOKLYN. YOUR ORDERS AS AMENDED ON AUGUST 11, 1953, DIRECTED THAT YOU REMAIN AT YOUR DUTY STATION IN BROOKLYN UPON COMPLETION OF YOUR TEMPORARY DUTY INSTEAD OF REPORTING TO ASTORIA, OREGON. THUS, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, WAS YOUR PERMANENT DUTY STATION UNTIL YOUR DEPARTURE FOR INYOKERN, CALIFORNIA, PURSUANT TO THE ORDERS OF OCTOBER 1, 1953. YOU NOW REFER TO A LETTER DATED JANUARY 19, 1956, FROM THE CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL AND CLAIM THAT YOU SHOULD RECEIVE PER DIEM FOR YOUR DUTY AT BROOKLYN. THE LETTER OF JANUARY 19, PURPORTS TO CANCEL PARAGRAPH 1 OF YOUR ORDERS OF AUGUST 11, 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 TRAVEL ORDERS BUT WAS OMITTED THROUGH ERROR OR INADVERTENCE IN PREPARING SUCH ORDERS, THE ORDERS 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 AUGUST 11, 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 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 BROOKLYN AFTER COMPLETION OF YOUR ASSIGNED TEMPORARY DUTY THERE. 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 JULY 10, 1953, AS AMENDED BY YOUR ORDERS OF AUGUST 11, 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.