B-133834, OCT. 29, 1957

B-133834, OCT. 29, 1957

TO MR. HOWARD JACOBY:

YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1957, REQUESTS REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 29, 1957, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $506.41, INCIDENT TO THE SHIPMENT OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS FROM CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, TO PLAINVIEW, NEW YORK.

PURSUANT TO ORDERS DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 1955, YOU WERE RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY IN THE UNITED STATES NAVAL RESERVE EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 21,1955. YOUR HOME OF RECORD WAS SHOWN AS FOREST HILLS, NEW YORK. DECEMBER 16, 1955, YOUR EFFECTS WERE PICKED UP AND PLACED IN SIX MONTHS' AUTHORIZED TEMPORARY STORAGE WHICH EXPIRED ON JUNE 15, 1956. YOUR EFFECTS CONTINUED TO REMAIN IN STORAGE AT CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, AT YOUR PERSONAL EXPENSE UNTIL MARCH 20, 1957, WHEN THEY WERE SHIPPED TO YOUR RESIDENCE IN NEW YORK. YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE COST OF THIS SHIPMENT WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED AUGUST 29, 1957, FOR THE REASON THAT SHIPMENT WAS NOT MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE YOU WERE RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY. IN YOUR LETTER YOU CONTEND THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF YOUR CLAIM BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT PROPERLY INFORMED BY THE NAVY OF THE ONE-YEAR LIMITATION FOR SHIPPING PRIVILEGES CONTAINED IN THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS.

AS WE STATED IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 29, 1957, PARAGRAPH 8009-5 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS WHICH AUTHORIZES SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS UPON SEPARATION FROM THE SERVICE FROM LAST DUTY STATION OR PLACE OF STORAGE TO HOME, SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT THE RIGHT TO SUCH SHIPMENT WILL TERMINATE IN ANY CASE WHERE THE EFFECTS ARE NOT TURNED OVER TO A TRANSPORTATION OFFICER OR TO A CARRIER WITHIN ONE YEAR FOLLOWING SEPARATION FROM THE SERVICE OR RELIEF FROM ACTIVE DUTY. THIS REGULATION WAS PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO SECTION 303 (C) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, 63 STAT. 813, 814 AND WAS PUBLISHED IN SUCH MANNER AS TO GIVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE TO PERSONS WHOSE RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED EITHER FAVORABLY OR ADVERSELY. IT IS A STATUTORY REGULATION AND HAS THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF LAW. AS A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES IT WAS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP YOURSELF INFORMED OF THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING YOUR MILITARY SERVICE AND WHILE IT IS THE ESTABLISHED PRACTICE FOR TRANSPORTATION PERSONNEL TO ALERT MEMBERS TO LIMITATIONS ON THEIR SHIPPING PRIVILEGES THERE IS NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO DO SO, THE SERVICE MEMBER BEING CHARGEABLE WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. HENCE, THE FACT THAT THEY MAY HAVE FAILED TO NOTIFY YOU OF THE ONE-YEAR LIMITATION MAY NOT BE USED AS A BASIS TO REVIVE A RIGHT WHICH HAD BEEN TERMINATED BY LAW. THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WRONGS, NEGLIGENCE OR OMISSIONS OF DUTY OF ITS OFFICERS OR AGENTS IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC STATUTORY PROVISION TO THE CONTRARY. SEE ROBERTSON V. SICHEL, 127 U.S. 507, 515.

ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM AND THE SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 29, 1957, WAS CORRECT AND IS SUSTAINED.

REGARDING YOUR REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AS TO HOW TO TAKE THIS CASE TO THE COURTS, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES HAS JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER AND DETERMINE CERTAIN CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IF FILED THERE WITHIN SIX YEARS AFTER THE CLAIMS FIRST ACCRUE. U.S.C. 2501.