B-129500, NOV. 29, 1956

B-129500, NOV. 29, 1956

TO DR. DEANE A. EBNER:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1956, REQUESTING REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT OF OUR OFFICE DATED SEPTEMBER 18, 1956, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS OF TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY, TO SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, DURING THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 29 TO MARCH 5, 1956.

THE DISALLOWANCE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1956, WAS ON THE GROUND THAT MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE OF DEPENDENTS WHO DEPART FROM THE OLD STATION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS; THAT YOUR CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS WERE DATED JUNE 21, 1956; AND THAT A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY AN OFFICER AT FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY, ON JANUARY 23, 1956, TO THE EFFECT THAT AVAILABLE RECORDS SHOWED THAT YOU WOULD BE SEPARATED FROM ACTIVE DUTY ON JUNE 30, 1956, MERELY INDICATED THAT YOU HAD GENERAL INFORMATION AS TO THE PROBABLE DATE OF YOUR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY. IN THE LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1956, YOU STATE THAT YOU HAD MORE THAN GENERAL INFORMATION AS TO THE PROBABLE DATE OF YOUR RELEASE, SINCE YOU ENTERED ON ACTIVE DUTY FOR A SPECIFIED LENGTH OF TIME WHICH EXPIRED ON JUNE 30, 1956, AND WHICH, YOU APPARENTLY BELIEVE, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXTENDED EXCEPT UPON YOUR APPLICATION. ALSO, YOU STATE THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF JANUARY 23, 1956, YOU WERE AUTHORIZED TO SHIP YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS PRIOR TO THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDERS OF JUNE 21, 1956, AND THAT IT WOULD SEEM LOGICAL THAT IF THE CERTIFICATE WAS VALID FOR ONE PORTION OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, IT WAS VALID FOR ANOTHER.

PARAGRAPH 7000-9 OF JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, IN EFFECT ON JUNE 21, 1956, PROVIDED THAT MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES WERE NOT ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS UPON A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION "WHERE THE DEPENDENTS DEPARTED OLD PERMANENT STATION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ORDERS, AND THE VOUCHER IS NOT SUPPORTED BY A CERTIFICATE OF THE COMMANDING OFFICER, OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE, OF THE HEADQUARTERS ISSUING THE ORDERS THAT THE MEMBER WAS ADVISED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS THAT SUCH ORDERS WOULD BE ISSUED.' WHILE A DATE OF RELEASE MAY BE INCLUDED IN ORDERS TO ACTIVE DUTY, FURTHER ORDERS MUST BE ISSUED TO EFFECTUATE RELEASE, AS IS EVIDENCED BY THE ORDERS OF JUNE 21, 1956, IN YOUR CASE. IT IS UPON THESE ORDERS THAT YOUR ENTITLEMENT, OR LACK OF ENTITLEMENT, TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS RESTS. THE QUOTED PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATIONS CONCERNING ENTITLEMENT TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS WHO DEPART FROM THE OLD STATION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ORDERS CONTEMPLATES DEPARTURE DURING THE COMPARATIVELY SHORT 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 ACTUALLY 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 OR, AS IN YOUR CASE, MAY BE DETERMINED FROM THE CONTEMPLATED DURATION OF A TOUR OF DUTY, IS INSUFFICIENT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE REGULATIONS. SEE OUR DECISION DATED NOVEMBER 22, 1954, B-121781, 34 COMP. GEN. 241. SINCE THE CERTIFICATE IN YOUR CASE MERELY RECITED THAT ACCORDING TO AVAILABLE RECORDS YOU WOULD BE SEPARATED FROM ACTIVE DUTY SOME FIVE MONTHS LATER, IT MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED AS BRINGING YOUR CASE WITHIN THE EXCEPTION IN PARAGRAPH 7000-9 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS.

ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1956, IS SUSTAINED. WE DO NOT HAVE BEFORE US, AT THIS TIME, SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE AUTHORIZATION FOR SHIPMENT OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WAS PROPER.