B-134002, NOV. 25, 1957

B-134002: Nov 25, 1957

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

USA: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 26. WHILE YOU WERE STATIONED IN PARIS. YOUR WIFE RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT HER FATHER WAS CRITICALLY ILL. YOUR WIFE AND INFANT SON WERE AUTHORIZED TRANSPORTATION TO A PORT OF DEBARKATION IN THE UNITED STATES. YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT WAS DISALLOWED BY THE SETTLEMENT MENTIONED ABOVE FOR THE REASON THAT GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION WAS AVAILABLE BUT NOT UTILIZED. IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU QUESTION WHETHER GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION WAS AVAILABLE. YOU POINT OUT THAT THIS WAS AN AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS IN ADVANCE OF ORDERS DIRECTING YOUR RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES. THE TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED SERVICES IS GOVERNED BY JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO SECTION 303 (C) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949.

B-134002, NOV. 25, 1957

TO CAPTAIN PHILLIP J. MOHR, USA:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1957, REQUESTING REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT OF JULY 29, 1957, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM PARIS, FRANCE, TO NEW YORK, NEW YORK.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ON DECEMBER 26, 1956, WHILE YOU WERE STATIONED IN PARIS, YOUR WIFE RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT HER FATHER WAS CRITICALLY ILL. BY LETTER ORDERS NO. 54, DATED DECEMBER 29, 1956, CONFIRMING VERBAL ORDERS OF DECEMBER 27, 1956, ISSUED AT YOUR REQUEST, YOUR WIFE AND INFANT SON WERE AUTHORIZED TRANSPORTATION TO A PORT OF DEBARKATION IN THE UNITED STATES. IT APPEARS THAT UPON RECEIPT OF ADVICE FROM MILITARY AIR TRANSPORT SERVICE THAT GOVERNMENT AIR TRANSPORTATION WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE BEFORE FIVE TO SEVEN DAYS, YOU PURCHASED COMMERCIAL AIR TRANSPORTATION FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS ON DECEMBER 27, 1956, AND THAT THEY LEFT PARIS ON THAT DATE. YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT WAS DISALLOWED BY THE SETTLEMENT MENTIONED ABOVE FOR THE REASON THAT GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION WAS AVAILABLE BUT NOT UTILIZED. IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU QUESTION WHETHER GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION WAS AVAILABLE. YOU STATE THAT MILITARY AIR TRANSPORT SERVICE COULD NOT GUARANTEE THAT TRANSPORTATION WOULD IN FACT BE AVAILABLE IN FIVE TO SEVEN DAYS DUE TO POSSIBLE BAD WEATHER, AND REFER TO THE FACT THAT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS TO TRAVEL TO FRANKFURT, GERMANY, TO OBTAIN THE TRANSPORTATION, AS HAVING SOME BEARING ON THE UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHEN SUCH TRANSPORTATION WOULD BE AVAILABLE. ALSO, YOU POINT OUT THAT THIS WAS AN AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS IN ADVANCE OF ORDERS DIRECTING YOUR RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES.

THE TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED SERVICES IS GOVERNED BY JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO SECTION 303 (C) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, AS AMENDED, 37 U.S.C. 253. THOSE REGULATIONS PROVIDE THAT FOR OCEAN TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS TO OR FROM THE UNITED STATES, GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT OR VESSELS WILL BE UTILIZED IF AVAILABLE. AN EXCEPTION TO THIS IS PROVIDED WHEN IT IS DETERMINED BY THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY OF THE SERVICE CONCERNED THAT THE USE OF GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES WOULD INVOLVE A DELAY OF MORE THAN 30 DAYS. THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS REPORTED THAT TRANSPORTATION WOULD HAVE BEEN FURNISHED FROM PARIS, FRANCE, TO FRANKFURT, GERMANY, FOR FURTHER TRANSPORTATION TO THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES. WHILE IT APPEARS THERE WAS NO GUARANTEE THAT SOME DELAY WOULD NOT BE ENCOUNTERED AT FRANKFURT, IT IS NOT SHOWN THAT THE DELAY WOULD HAVE EXCEEDED 30 DAYS. THE REGULATIONS DO NOT PROVIDE FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR OCEAN TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS WHEN GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION IS NOT IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE FOR DEPENDENTS WHO, FOR EMERGENCY REASONS SUCH AS FAMILY ILLNESS, ARE PERMITTED TO TRAVEL IN ADVANCE OF CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS. THE PROVISIONS IN PARAGRAPH 7009-3 OF THE REGULATION, WHICH PERMIT ADVANCE RETURN OF DEPENDENTS TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE STATED, MERELY REMOVED THE RESTRICTIONS AGAINST ADVANCE TRAVEL CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 7000-9 OF SUCH REGULATIONS. SUCH BEING THE CASE, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM NOTWITHSTANDING THE PERSONAL REASONS WHICH RENDERED IMMEDIATE TRANSPORTATION DESIRABLE.