B-132556, SEP. 26, 1957

B-132556, SEP. 26, 1957

TO MR. CLIFFORD A. FALKENAU:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 27, 1957, REQUESTING REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT OF JUNE 19, 1957, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR PER DIEM FOR THE PERIOD FROM MAY 20 TO JUNE 2, 1956, INCIDENT TO ACTIVE- DUTY TRAINING PERFORMED BY YOU AS AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY RESERVE.

UNDER ORDERS OF HEADQUARTERS, MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY DISTRICT, ARMY BASE, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, DATED MAY 9, 1956, YOU WERE ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY FOR TRAINING FOR A PERIOD OF 15 DAYS, EFFECTIVE MAY 20, 1956, AND DIRECTED TO PROCEED FROM YOUR HOME AT MARBLE HEAD, MASSACHUSETTS, AND REPORT ON THAT DATE TO THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, NEW ENGLAND DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AT BOSTON. UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE TRAINING YOU WERE TO RETURN TO YOUR HOME AND REVERT TO AN INACTIVE STATUS ON JUNE 3, 1956. ORDERS OF THE NEW ENGLAND DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DATED MAY 19, 1956, DIRECTED THAT YOU PROCEED ON OR ABOUT MAY 20, 1956, FROM YOUR PERMANENT DUTY STATION AT BOSTON TO PORTSMOUTH AIR FORCE BASE, PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE, FOR TEMPORARY DUTY FOR APPROXIMATELY 14 DAYS, INVOLVING FIELD TRAINING IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACTIVE DUTY TRAINING DIRECTED BY THE MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY DISTRICT ORDERS OF MAY 9, UPON THE COMPLETION OF WHICH YOU WERE TO RETURN TO YOUR PERMANENT STATION. IT WAS PROVIDED THAT A PER DIEM OF $12 OR $9, AS APPLICABLE, WAS AUTHORIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS. THOSE ORDERS WERE AMENDED BY FURTHER ORDERS OF THE SAME COMMAND, ALSO DATED MAY 19, 1956, BUT APPARENTLY ISSUED ON A LATER DATE, TO PROVIDE "NO PER DIEM ALLOWABLE.' IT APPEARS THAT YOU LEFT BOSTON AT 8 A.M. ON MAY 20 AND ARRIVED AT PORTSMOUTH AT 10:15 A.M. OF THAT DAY, AND THAT YOU REMAINED THERE UNTIL 2:45 P.M. ON JUNE 2, 1956, WHEN YOU LEFT TO RETURN TO BOSTON.

PARAGRAPH 6001, CHANGE 35, JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, DATED JUNE 1, 1955, PROVIDES THAT NO TRAVEL PER DIEM ALLOWANCES ARE PAYABLE TO MEMBERS OF RESERVE COMPONENTS OF THE ARMED FORCES CALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY FOR TRAINING WITH PAY FOR ANY PERIODS WHILE AT THEIR TRAINING DUTY STATIONS. THE BASIS FOR THAT LIMITATION IS THAT SINCE THE TRAINING DUTY STATION IS THE MEMBER'S ONLY DUTY STATION HE MAY NOT WHILE THERE BE CONSIDERED AS IN A TRAVEL STATUS AWAY FROM HIS DESIGNATED POST OF DUTY FOR PER DIEM PURPOSES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 202/A) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, 63 STAT. 813. WHILE IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT A RESERVE OFFICER ON ACTIVE TRAINING DUTY MIGHT BE CONSIDERED AS IN A TRAVEL STATUS FOR PER DIEM PURPOSES IF ORDERED AWAY FROM THE TRAINING STATION FOR SHORT PERIODS FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF TEMPORARY ADDITIONAL DUTY (28 COMP. GEN. 166), THAT CIRCUMSTANCES IS NOT CONSIDERED AS INVOLVED WHERE, AS IN YOUR CASE, ORDERS DIRECT THE MEMBER TO PERFORM TRAINING DUTY AT A PLACE OTHER THAN THE PLACE IT IS INTENDED THAT HIS PRIMARY TRAINING DUTY WILL BE PERFORMED, WITH THE INTENT TO ORDER HIM FROM THAT POINT TO THE PLACE OF PRIMARY TRAINING DUTY UNDER TEMPORARY ADDITIONAL DUTY ORDERS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS CONSIDERED THAT THE STATION WHERE THE PRIMARY TRAINING DUTY IS FOR PERFORMANCE IS THE DESIGNATED POST OF DUTY IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT SO INDICATED IN THE ACTIVE-DUTY ORDERS, AND THAT AS A CONSEQUENCE, NO AUTHORITY EXISTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF PER DIEM FOR DUTY AT THAT STATION. COMP. GEN. 494.

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ACTIVE-DUTY TRAINING CONTEMPLATED IN THE ORDERS OF MAY 9 AND MAY 19, 1956, WAS PERFORMED AT PORTSMOUTH. IT MUST BE CONSIDERED, THEREFORE, THAT PORTSMOUTH WAS YOUR DESIGNATED POST OF DUTY AND THAT NO AUTHORITY EXISTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE PER DIEM CLAIMED FOR THE PERIOD WHILE AT THAT STATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF JUNE 19, 1957, IS SUSTAINED.