B-129545, OCT 30, 1956

B-129545: Oct 30, 1956

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

WAS A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 4. YOUR LETTERS WILL BE CONSIDERED AS REQUESTING THE REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 17. DISALLOWED THAT PART OF THE CLAIM COVERING HER TRAVEL FROM GERMANY TO NEW YORK CITY BECAUSE GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION WAS AVAILABLE FOR SUCH TRAVEL. IT APPEARS THAT YOU WERE MARRIED WHILE STATIONED IN THE VICINITY OF FRANKFURT. YOU STATED THAT YOUR WIFE WAS ISSUED A NONQUOTA IMMIGRATION VISA ON NOVEMBER 25. THE REQUEST WAS REFUSED. WERE ADVISED TO CONTACT THE TRANSPORTATION OFFICER AT THE PORT OF EMBARKATION. YOU INDICATE THAT IN REPLY TO A REQUEST MADE TO THE OVERSEAS STATION YOU WERE ADVISED TO CONTACT THE MILITARY POST NEAREST YOUR HOME (ARMY HEADQUARTERS AT LITTLE ROCK) FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE NECESSARY ORDERS.

B-129545, OCT 30, 1956

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

CECIL E. SCHAFER:

THERE HAS BEEN RECEIVED, BY REFERENCE FROM HONORABLE JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, UNITED STATES SENATE, YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 4, 1956, CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION FOR YOUR DEPENDENT WIFE BY COMMERCIAL MEANS FROM VIENNA, AUSTRIA, TO YOUR HOME AT BRYANT, ARKANSAS, INCIDENT TO YOUR TRANSFER UNDER ORDERS OF JULY 15, 1952, FROM YOUR DUTY STATION AT FRANKFURT, GERMANY, TO CAMP KILMER, NEW JERSEY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING SEPARATED FROM THE SERVICE. ALSO, RECEIVED WITH A LETTER OF OCTOBER 5, 1956, FROM THE FINANCE CENTER, U. S. ARMY, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, WAS A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1956, TO MAJOR GUY G. MCCONNELL, OFFICE OF CHIEF OF LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM. YOUR LETTERS WILL BE CONSIDERED AS REQUESTING THE REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1956, WHICH ALLOWED $77.28 FOR YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL FROM NEW YORK, NEW YORK, TO LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, YOUR HOME OF RECORD, AND DISALLOWED THAT PART OF THE CLAIM COVERING HER TRAVEL FROM GERMANY TO NEW YORK CITY BECAUSE GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION WAS AVAILABLE FOR SUCH TRAVEL.

IT APPEARS THAT YOU WERE MARRIED WHILE STATIONED IN THE VICINITY OF FRANKFURT, GERMANY, BUT THAT YOUR WIFE COULD NOT RETURN WITH YOU TO THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE SHE HAD NOT RECEIVED A VISA AT THAT TIME. YOU STATED THAT YOUR WIFE WAS ISSUED A NONQUOTA IMMIGRATION VISA ON NOVEMBER 25, 1952, GOOD FOR ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS AND THAT SHE WENT TO THE U. S. ARMY HEADQUARTERS AT VIENNA TO REQUEST TRANSPORTATION TO THE UNITED STATES ON THE BASIS OF SUCH VISA, BUT THE REQUEST WAS REFUSED. YOU FURTHER STATE THAT ON RECEIPT OF TELEGRAPHIC INFORMATION OF THAT REFUSAL FROM YOUR WIFE YOU REQUESTED TRANSPORTATION FOR HER AT ARMY HEADQUARTERS IN LITTLE ROCK, AND WERE ADVISED TO CONTACT THE TRANSPORTATION OFFICER AT THE PORT OF EMBARKATION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, WHO ADVISED YOU IN TURN TO CONTACT YOUR LAST OVERSEAS STATION AND REQUEST THAT THE TRANSPORTATION BE ARRANGED BY THEM. ALSO, YOU INDICATE THAT IN REPLY TO A REQUEST MADE TO THE OVERSEAS STATION YOU WERE ADVISED TO CONTACT THE MILITARY POST NEAREST YOUR HOME (ARMY HEADQUARTERS AT LITTLE ROCK) FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE NECESSARY ORDERS. COPIES OF YOUR LETTER TO THE COMMANDING OFFICER, TWELFTH INFANTRY REGIMENT, FOURTH INFANTRY DIVISION, YOUR LAST OVERSEAS STATION, AND OF THE REPLY THERETO, REFERRED TO BY YOU (WHICH WERE ENCLOSURES WITH YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 4, 1956, TO SENATOR MCCLELLAN), ARE DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 1952, AND DECEMBER 3, 1952, RESPECTIVELY. IT APPEARS THEREFORE THAT SUCH REQUEST IN FACT WAS MADE BEFORE THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF YOUR WIFE'S VISA, AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT THE OTHER REQUESTS REFERRED TO WHICH PRECEDED THE ONE TO THE OVERSEAS STATION ALSO MUST HAVE BEEN MADE BEFORE THAT DATE.

YOU STATE THAT IN A LAST EFFORT TO OBTAIN GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION FOR YOUR WIFE YOU SENT A TELEGRAM TO THE OFFICE OF CHIEF OF TRANSPORTATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, WASHINGTON, D. C., TO EXPLAIN YOUR EFFORTS TO OBTAIN THE TRANSPORTATION AND TO ASK FOR ADVICE. YOU DID NOT INDICATE THE DATE ON WHICH THE TELEGRAM WAS SENT. YOU STATED, HOWEVER, THAT SINCE EVERY EFFORT HAD BEEN MADE TO OBTAIN GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION FOR YOUR WIFE AND SINCE TIME WAS RUNNING OUT ON HER VISA YOU TELEGRAPHED MONEY TO HER FOR COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION, WHICH SHE APPARENTLY USED TO PURCHASE PASSAGE ON THE S.S. SAMARIA. THERE IS NO INDICATION AS TO THE DATE OF THAT ACTION OR WHETHER YOU WAITED A REASONABLE PERIOD FOR REPLY FROM THE CHIEF OF TRANSPORTATION BEFORE TAKING SUCH ACTION. YOU STATE FURTHER THAT THREE DAYS BEFORE YOUR WIFE WAS DUE TO DEPART FROM LE HAVRE, FRANCE, ON THE S.S. SAMARIA A REPRESENTATIVE OF U. S. ARMY HEADQUARTERS AT VIENNA CAME TO HER HOME TO INFORM HER HE WAS ORDERED TO FURNISH HER WITH FIRST AVAILABLE TRANSPORTATION TO THE UNITED STATES. SUCH TRANSPORTATION APPARENTLY WAS REFUSED BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT THEN OBTAIN REFUND OF THE MONEY PAID FOR THE COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT LATER YOU RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE OFFICE OF CHIEF OF TRANSPORTATION (DATE NOT STATED) ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF YOUR TELEGRAM REQUESTING ADVICE ON GOVERNMENT TRAVEL FOR YOUR WIFE, AND STATING THAT THEY HAD WRITTEN TO ARMY HEADQUARTERS AT VIENNA FOR DIRECT REPLY IN THE MATTER. YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL FROM VIENNA TO BRYANT, ARKANSAS, APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PERFORMED DURING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 8 TO 21, 1953.

PARAGRAPH 7002-1B OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, THEN IN EFFECT, PROVIDES THAT TRANSPORTATION FOR DEPENDENTS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL TO OR FROM THE UNITED STATES "WILL NOT BE OTHER THAN BY GOVERNMENT VESSEL, IF AVAILABLE, AND ITS USE WILL NOT OCCASION A DELAY OF MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS AS DETERMINED BY THE UNIFORMED SERVICE CHARGED WITH MAKING SUCH DETERMINATION; OR BY GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT, IF THIS MODE OF TRAVEL IS AVAILABLE AND ACCEPTABLE TO THE MEMBER FOR HIS DEPENDENTS." SUCH REGULATIONS CONTEMPLATE THAT ANY RIGHT TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE COST OF COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION FOR DEPENDENTS TO OR FROM THE UNITED STATES CAN ARISE ONLY UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION IS EITHER SHOWN TO BE NOT AVAILABLE, OR, IF AVAILABLE, WHERE THERE HAS BEEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION THAT ITS USE WILL OCCASION A DELAY IN TRAVEL OF MORE THAN 30 DAYS.

IN RESPONSE TO AN INQUIRY MADE IN YOUR CASE THE CHIEF OF TRANSPORTATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, REPORTED THAT DURING THE PERIOD INVOLVED THERE WERE FREQUENT SAILINGS OF GOVERNMENT VESSELS BETWEEN NEW YORK CITY AND EUROPEAN PORTS AVAILABLE FOR DEPENDENTS TRAVEL, AND FREQUENT MILITARY AIR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE FLIGHTS BETWEEN FRANKFURT AND WESTOVER AIR FORCE BASE, MASSACHUSETTS, ALSO AVAILABLE FOR DEPENDENTS AUTHORIZED TO TRAVEL ON GOVERNMENT FACILITIES. YOUR REQUESTS FOR TRANSPORTATION FOR YOUR WIFE, OTHER THAN THAT TO THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF TRANSPORTATION, APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN MADE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF YOUR WIFE'S VISA AND THEREFORE BEFORE SHE WAS ELIGIBLE TO TRAVEL TO THE UNITED STATES. APPEARS THAT GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION WAS OFFERED TO HER WITH REASONABLE PROMPTNESS AFTER HER ELIGIBILITY TO TRAVEL WAS ESTABLISHED WHICH SHE REFUSED BECAUSE SHE THEN HAD BOOKED THE COMMERCIAL PASSAGE. APPARENTLY NO ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION WAS EVER MADE THAT THE USE OF AVAILABLE GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION WOULD OCCASION A DELAY OF MORE THAN 30 DAYS IN HER TRAVEL AS REQUIRED BY THE REGULATIONS.

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWN THE CONCLUSION IS REQUIRED THAT GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION WAS AVAILABLE AND WAS OFFERED TO YOUR WIFE FOR HER TRAVEL FROM GERMANY TO THE UNITED STATES WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER SHE BECAME ELIGIBLE TO PROCEED TO THE UNITED STATES AND THEREFORE THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION IN THE MATTER WAS MET. CONSEQUENTLY, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE ADDITIONAL SUM CLAIMED. ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1956, IS SUSTAINED.