B-139998, SEP. 30, 1959

B-139998, SEP. 30, 1959

TO SERGEANT GENE L. CARMICHAEL, RA 17456604:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF JUNE 3 AND JULY 13, 1959, REQUESTING REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT DATED JANUARY 13, 1959, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS' TRAVEL, INCIDENT TO ORDERS DATED JANUARY 6, 1958, AS AMENDED, AND FEBRUARY 14, 1958.

THE CITED ORDERS DIRECTED YOU TO PROCEED ON OR ABOUT JANUARY 10, 1958, FROM YOUR DUTY STATION AT FORT DEVENS, MASSACHUSETTS, TO FORT DIX, NEW JERSEY, FOR FURTHER TRANSPORTATION OVERSEAS, WITH TEMPORARY DUTY ENROUTE AT FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA. YOU WERE TO REPORT AT THE LATTER PLACE NOT LATER THAN JANUARY 24, 1958, AND 12 DAYS' LEAVE ENROUTE WAS AUTHORIZED. ON MARCH 21, 1958, YOUR DEPENDENTS LEFT GARDNER, MASSACHUSETTS FOR TRAVEL TO PITTSBURG, KANSAS, WHERE THEY REMAINED UNTIL THEY WERE AUTHORIZED TO TRAVEL OVERSEAS UNDER TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION DATED APRIL 16, 1958. YOU WERE PAID THE SUM OF $24.03 FOR THEIR TRAVEL COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE OFFICIAL DISTANCE FROM FORT DEVENS, MASSACHUSETTS, TO FORT HAMILTON, NEW YORK, PORT OF EMBARKATION.

YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL REIMBURSEMENT BASED ON THE DISTANCE FROM GARDNER TO PITTSBURG, NOT TO EXCEED FORT DEVENS TO PITTSBURG (MARCH 21 TO 26, 1958) AND FROM THE LATTER PLACE TO NEW YORK, NEW YORK (JUNE 21 TO 24, 1958), WAS DENIED ON THE BASIS THAT CONCURRENT TRAVEL COULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR AND THE VOUCHER WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY A DISAPPROVED APPLICATION.

YOU CONTEND THAT YOU WERE NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR CONCURRENT TRAVEL FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS AT YOUR OLD STATION, FORT DEVENS, SINCE YOU WERE TOLD THAT SUCH ACTION WOULD BE IN VAIN DUE TO THE FACT THAT YOU WERE BEING SENT OVERSEAS IN A "PACKET ORDER.' THE RECORD BEFORE THIS OFFICE FURNISHES NO SUPPORT FOR SUCH CONTENTION. YOU STATE THAT YOUR CLAIM IS THE SAME AS THAT OF A SERGEANT BUCKSATH AND THAT YOU AND CERTAIN OTHER ENLISTED MEN, INCLUDING SERGEANT BUCKSATH, TALKED TO CERTAIN OFFICIALS AT FORT DEVENS CONCERNING THE MATTER OF CONCURRENT TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS, ONE OF WHICH WAS "SFC PHILLIPS, PERSONNEL SGT, OF BATTALION.' INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY IN CONNECTION WITH A SIMILAR CLAIM FILED BY SERGEANT CHRISTOPHER T. BUCKSATH, INCLUDES A STATEMENT DATED MAY 21, 1959, SIGNED BY ROBERT G. PHILLIPS, SR. (SFC) WHO WAS ASSIGNED TO DUTY IN THE PERSONNEL SECTION AT HEADQUARTERS, 20TH ENGINEER BATTALION (COMBAT), AT FORT DEVENS. THAT STATEMENT IS AS FOLLOWS:

"DUE TO THE RELATIVELY SHORT TIME INVOLVED IN PROCESSING SGT BUCKSATH FOR MOVEMENT FROM THIS COMMAND, AN EFFORT WAS MADE TO OFFER HIM THE RIGHT TO APPLY FOR MOVEMENT OF DEPENDENTS PRIOR TO HIS DEPARTURE. HE WAS INFORMED THAT IT WAS HIS PRIVILEGE TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR THE TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS, BUT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DEPART AS SCHEDULED BY ORDERS UNTIL AN ANSWER HAD BEEN RECEIVED CONCERNING HIS REQUEST. A NEGATIVE REACTION WAS GIVEN OFF BY THE INDIVIDUAL, AND NO FURTHER ATTEMPT WAS MADE IN REGARDS TO HIS APPLYING FOR TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS.'

PARAGRAPH 1, AR 35-3045, DATED AUGUST 29, 1955, IMPLEMENTING THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, WITH RESPECT TO A MEMBER'S ENTITLEMENT TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS INCIDENT TO HIS ASSIGNMENT ON A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION TO AN OVERSEAS AREA TO WHICH CONCURRENT TRAVEL MAY BE AUTHORIZED, PROVIDES THAT IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF A MEMBER WHO HAS RECEIVED PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS ASSIGNING HIM TO A STATION OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OR IN ALASKA, TO DETERMINE AND ADVISE HIM AS TO WHETHER CONCURRENT TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS IS AUTHORIZED OR MAY BE APPLIED FOR TO THE ASSIGNED DESTINATION. HE IS ALSO CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF FURNISHING SUCH MEMBER WITH THE REQUIRED APPLICATION FORMS PERTINENT TO CONCURRENT TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS. PARAGRAPH 2 PROVIDES THAT TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS TO A DESIGNATED LOCATION IS NOT AUTHORIZED IN THE EVENT CONCURRENT TRAVEL WAS AUTHORIZED, OR COULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR, TO THE ASSIGNED OVERSEA STATION, UNLESS SUCH APPLICATION WAS DISAPPROVED OR IT IS DETERMINED BY THE APPROPRIATE ARMY COMMANDER THAT TIME DID NOT PERMIT THE PROCESSING OF SUCH APPLICATION FOLLOWING RECEIPT BY THE MEMBER OF HIS PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS. PARAGRAPH 3B PROVIDES THAT WHEN A DETERMINATION IS MADE BY THE APPROPRIATE CONTINENTAL ARMY COMMANDER OR COMMANDING GENERAL, MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, THAT INSUFFICIENT TIME REMAINED TO PROCESS THE APPLICATION FOR CONCURRENT TRAVEL, THE MEMBER IS ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION FOR DEPENDENTS TO A DESIGNATED LOCATION IN THE UNITED STATES OR TO A TERRITORY OR POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES SUBJECT TO PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE.

THE ABOVE QUOTED STATEMENT DATED MAY 21, 1959, INDICATES THAT YOU WERE INFORMED OF YOUR RIGHT TO APPLY FOR MOVEMENT OF YOUR DEPENDENTS AND THAT YOU DID NOT MAKE SUCH APPLICATION FOR PERSONAL REASONS RELATING TO THE USE OF THE AUTHORIZED LEAVE OF 12 DAYS. NO TRAVEL ACTUALLY WAS REQUIRED UNDER YOUR ORDERS UNTIL ON OR ABOUT JANUARY 23, 1958, SINCE IT WAS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE INSTALLATION COMMANDER AT FORT DEVENS WOULD HAVE HAD SUFFICIENT TIME TO PROCESS AN APPLICATION FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS' TRAVEL IF SUCH APPLICATION HAD BEEN SUBMITTED, AND BEARING IN MIND THAT YOUR DEPENDENTS DID NOT COMMENCE TRAVEL TO PITTSBURG UNTIL MARCH 21, 1958, SPECIFIC INFORMATION AS TO THIS MATTER WAS REQUESTED FROM THE COMMANDING OFFICER AT FORT DEVENS. BY TWX DATED AUGUST 19, 1959, THAT COMMAND ADVISED AS FOLLOWS:

"1. THERE ARE NO RECORDS AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT SUBJECT EM WERE PERMITTED THE REQUIRED TIME TO PROCESS APPLICATIONS FOR DEPENDENT TRAVEL.

"2. EM WERE NOTIFIED OF THEIR RIGHTS TO SUBMIT APPLICATIONS FOR DEPENDENT TRAVEL BUT DID NOT DO SO.

"3. THIS HEADQUARTERS NORMALLY HAS SUFFICIENT TIME TO PROCESS ALL APPLICATIONS FOR DEPENDENT TRAVEL PRIOR TO DEPARTURE OF PERSONNEL FROM THIS STATION.'

IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR A MORE SPECIFIC STATEMENT, WE WERE ADVISED BY TWX DATED AUGUST 13, 1959, THAT "THIS HQS HAS SUFFICIENT TIME TO PROCESS MEMBERS APPLICATIONS FOR CONCURRENT TRAVEL FOR THEIR DEPENDENTS.'

UNDER THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REGULATIONS YOUR WERE ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENTS TO YOUR OVERSEAS STATION, VIA PITTSBURG, ONLY IN THE EVENT THAT IT WAS DETERMINED THAT TIME DID NOT PERMIT THE PROCESSING OF AN APPLICATION FOR CONCURRENT TRAVEL AFTER RECEIPT OF YOUR TRAVEL ORDERS. NOT ONLY DID YOU FAIL TO FILE SUCH APPLICATION, BUT THE OFFICER CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING SUCH DETERMINATION HAS INDICATED THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT TIME TO HAVE PROCESSED AN APPLICATION IF YOU HAD FILED ONE. IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER EVIDENCE FROM AN OFFICIAL SOURCE WARRANTING A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION, NO FURTHER ACTION MAY BE TAKEN IN THE MATTER. ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF JANUARY 13, 1959, IS SUSTAINED.