B-135883, MAY 26, 1958

B-135883: May 26, 1958

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

USNR: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 31. YOU WERE DETACHED FROM DUTY AT WHITTIER. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT YOUR DEPENDENTS TRAVELED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ORDERS RETURNING YOU TO THE UNITED STATES. IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU STATE YOUR MAIN CONCERN IS REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL OF YOUR WIFE AND SON FROM SEATTLE TO LAMESA. THAT THE TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM YOUR OVERSEAS' STATION WAS UNDER UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES DUE TO LACK OF APPROPRIATE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES FOR THE CHILDREN. YOU STATE YOU WERE REASONABLY ASSURED THAT PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS RETURNING YOU TO THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE ISSUED ALTHOUGH YOU DID NOT KNOW THE NAME OF THE VESSEL TO WHICH YOU WOULD BE ASSIGNED NOR THE LOCATION OF ITS HOME PORT.

B-135883, MAY 26, 1958

TO LIEUTENANT COMMANDER S. J. GILLILAND, USNR:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 31, 1958, REQUESTING REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT OF NOVEMBER 20, 1957, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM WHITTIER, ALASKA, TO LAMESA, CALIFORNIA.

BY BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL ORDERS DATED JUNE 20, 1956, YOU WERE DETACHED FROM DUTY AT WHITTIER, ALASKA, AND DIRECTED TO PROCEED TO SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, FOR DUTY ABOARD THE USS PORTERFIELD (DD-682). YOUR WIFE AND SON TRAVELED FROM WHITTIER TO ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, BY RAIL, THENCE TO LAMESA, CALIFORNIA, BY PRIVATELY OWNED CONVEYANCE DURING THE PERIOD MAY 22 TO JUNE 7, 1956. YOUR DAUGHTER RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES ON OR ABOUT AUGUST 15, 1955, TO ATTEND COLLEGE AT TEMPE, ARIZONA. SHE TRAVELED TO WHITTIER ON MARCH 29, 1956, AND AFTER A BRIEF VISIT RETURNED TO TEMPE ON APRIL 7, 1956. SHE DEPARTED TEMPE ON OR ABOUT JUNE 3, 1956, AND ARRIVED AT LAMESA ON JUNE 7, 1956. AS TO HER, YOUR CLAIM INCLUDES ONE TRIP, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, TO LEMESA, CALIFORNIA. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT YOUR DEPENDENTS TRAVELED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ORDERS RETURNING YOU TO THE UNITED STATES. IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU STATE YOUR MAIN CONCERN IS REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL OF YOUR WIFE AND SON FROM SEATTLE TO LAMESA, AND THAT THE TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM YOUR OVERSEAS' STATION WAS UNDER UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES DUE TO LACK OF APPROPRIATE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES FOR THE CHILDREN. IN THIS CONNECTION YOU CITE PARAGRAPH 7009-3-3 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS. ALSO, YOU STATE YOU WERE REASONABLY ASSURED THAT PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS RETURNING YOU TO THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE ISSUED ALTHOUGH YOU DID NOT KNOW THE NAME OF THE VESSEL TO WHICH YOU WOULD BE ASSIGNED NOR THE LOCATION OF ITS HOME PORT, AND THE FACT THAT YOUR DEPENDENTS TRAVELED TO A POINT NEAR THE HOME PORT OF THE VESSEL TO WHICH YOU SUBSEQUENTLY WERE ASSIGNED WAS COINCIDENTAL.

THE TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED 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. PARAGRAPH 7009-3 OF THOSE REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT A MEMBER SERVING ON PERMANENT DUTY AT A STATION OUTSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES OR IN ALASKA MAY REQUEST RETURN OF HIS DEPENDENTS TO THE UNITED STATES PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ORDERS FOR HIS RETURN AND THAT COMMANDING OFFICERS MAY ISSUE ORDERS AUTHORIZING THE ADVANCE RETURN OF DEPENDENTS TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER CERTAIN UNUSUAL OR EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES PROVIDED THAT THE ORDER SPECIFICALLY LIMITS TRANSPORTATION TO THE PORT OF DEBARKATION IN THE UNITED STATES. SINCE ORDERS WERE NOT ISSUED FOR THE ADVANCE RETURN OF YOUR DEPENDENTS, AND SINCE YOUR CLAIM IS, IN EFFECT, FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR THEIR TRAVEL FROM THE NORMAL PORT OF DEBARKATION TO YOUR NEW STATION, THAT PROVISION AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM.

PARAGRAPH 7000-9 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS IS NOT AUTHORIZED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE WHEN THE DEPENDENTS DEPART THE OLD PERMANENT STATION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS. AN EXCEPTION IS PROVIDED, HOWEVER, WHEN THE VOUCHER COVERING PAYMENT IS SUPPORTED BY A CERTIFICATE OF THE COMMANDING OFFICER, OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE, OF THE HEADQUARTERS ISSUING THE ORDERS THAT THE MEMBER WAS ADVISED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS THAT SUCH ORDERS WOULD BE ISSUED. MERE GENERAL KNOWLEDGE OF AN EVENTUAL CHANGE OF STATION, HOWEVER, IS INSUFFICIENT. COMP. GEN. 241. THE CERTIFICATE, FOR USE IN PROPER CASES, IS PRESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 7003 3, NAVY TRAVEL INSTRUCTIONS, REFERRED TO BY YOU. AS TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH SUCH CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED, PARAGRAPH 7003-2 OF THOSE INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDES THAT COMMANDING OFFICERS WILL NOT EXECUTE THE PRESCRIBED CERTIFICATE UNLESS THE ADVANCE INFORMATION INCLUDES THE LOCATION OF THE NEW DUTY STATION OR NEW HOME PORT OR HOME YARD. SINCE SUCH INFORMATION WAS NOT KNOWN TO YOU WHEN YOUR DEPENDENTS TRAVELED, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE CERTIFICATE CANNOT PROPERLY BE ISSUED IN YOUR CASE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM, AND THE SETTLEMENT OF NOVEMBER 20, 1957, IS SUSTAINED.