B-132482, AUG. 12, 1957
Highlights
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE: BY OUR INSTRUCTIONS OF TODAY TO OUR CLAIMS DIVISION WE HAVE AUTHORIZED ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF ROBERT B. THIS ACTION IS IN ACCORD WITH THAT TAKEN IN THE CASE OF ROBERT C. UNDERSTAND THAT TWO SIMILAR CASES WERE ALLOWED ADMINISTRATIVELY. EVEN THOUGH FIRM RESERVATIONS WERE NOT MADE. APPARENTLY WAS UPON THE ASSURANCE FROM THE MATSON NAVIGATION COMPANY THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CHANCE. TO HAVE BEEN BASED UPON THE FACT THAT THE TRAVEL ORDERS DID NOT RESTRICT TRAVEL TO A PARTICULAR MODE OF TRANSPORTATION. THE FAVORABLE ACTION TAKEN IN THE ABOVE CASES IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS APPROVAL. WE ASSUME YOUR DIVISION WILL TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO PREVENT ADDITIONAL SIMILAR CLAIMS.
B-132482, AUG. 12, 1957
TO MR. CARL H. DORNY, DIRECTOR, BUDGET AND FINANCE DIVISION, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE:
BY OUR INSTRUCTIONS OF TODAY TO OUR CLAIMS DIVISION WE HAVE AUTHORIZED ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF ROBERT B. MILLER FOR MILEAGE AND PER DIEM INCIDENT TO TRAVEL FROM OREGON TO HAWAII VIA SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. THIS ACTION IS IN ACCORD WITH THAT TAKEN IN THE CASE OF ROBERT C. MALMGREN, OUR CERTIFICATE OF SETTLEMENT NO. 2287143, JULY 11, 1957. UNDERSTAND THAT TWO SIMILAR CASES WERE ALLOWED ADMINISTRATIVELY.
THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE EMPLOYEES IN PROCEEDING TO CALIFORNIA, EVEN THOUGH FIRM RESERVATIONS WERE NOT MADE, APPARENTLY WAS UPON THE ASSURANCE FROM THE MATSON NAVIGATION COMPANY THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CHANCE, BECAUSE OF THE USUAL CANCELLATIONS, THAT RESERVATIONS COULD BE OBTAINED AFTER ARRIVAL AT PORT OF EMBARKATION. ALSO, THE DECISION OF THE EMPLOYEES APPEARS, IN PART, TO HAVE BEEN BASED UPON THE FACT THAT THE TRAVEL ORDERS DID NOT RESTRICT TRAVEL TO A PARTICULAR MODE OF TRANSPORTATION.
THE FAVORABLE ACTION TAKEN IN THE ABOVE CASES IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS APPROVAL, GENERALLY, OF THE PRACTICE OF EMPLOYEES PROCEEDING TO A PORT OF EMBARKATION WITHOUT FIRM RESERVATIONS. MOREOVER, IN VIEW OF THE QUESTIONABLE NATURE OF THE PRACTICE, WE ASSUME YOUR DIVISION WILL TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO PREVENT ADDITIONAL SIMILAR CLAIMS, WHICH CLAIMS, IN ABSENCE OF IMPELLING REASONS FOR THE ADDITIONAL COSTS INCURRED, WOULD BE FOR DISALLOWANCE. HOWEVER, ANY FUTURE SIMILAR CLAIM AS TO WHICH, BECAUSE OF THE UNUSUAL FACTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CASE, PRESENTS A DOUBT AS TO THE