B-141742, MAR. 18, 1960
Highlights
IS A COLLEGE STUDENT. IN EACH CASE HIS OCEAN TRAVEL WAS BY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT AND HIS TRAVEL FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO WASHINGTON WAS AT YOUR EXPENSE. YOUR CLAIM IS FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR ONE TRIP. THAT YOU WERE RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES AND ASSIGNED TO DUTY IN WASHINGTON. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT THE FIRST TRIP WAS PRIOR TO YOUR ORDERS AND THE SECOND WAS AFTER YOUR SON HAD REACHED THE AGE OF 21. IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE SETTLEMENT IS LEGALLY CORRECT. SINCE YOUR ORDERS FROM OVERSEAS DUTY WERE TO DUTY IN WASHINGTON. YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE COST OF ONE TRIP FROM THE WEST COAST TO WASHINGTON. IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED PRIOR TO THE RECEIPT OF YOUR ORDERS OR AFTER HE BECAME 21 YEARS OF AGE.
B-141742, MAR. 18, 1960
TO REAR ADMIRAL PAUL P. BLACKBURN, JR., USN, PENTAGON BUILDING:
YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 14, 1959, REQUESTS REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT OF NOVEMBER 17, 1959, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR MILEAGE FOR LAND TRAVEL PERFORMED BY YOUR SON PAUL P. BLACKBURN IN TRAVELING FROM YOUR FORMER DUTY STATION, OKINAWA, RYUKYUS ISLANDS, TO WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR THE PURPOSE OF ATTENDING COLLEGE IN THE VICINITY OF WASHINGTON.
IT APPEARS THAT YOUR DEPENDENTS (WIFE AND TWO SONS) ACCOMPANIED YOU TO OKINAWA UPON PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION; THAT ONE SON, PAUL, IS A COLLEGE STUDENT, AND THAT, THERE BEING NO SUITABLE COLLEGE FACILITIES ON OKINAWA, HE RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES AUGUST 25 TO SEPTEMBER 10, 1958, AND AGAIN AUGUST 2 TO SEPTEMBER 10, 1959, TO ATTEND COLLEGE IN THE VICINITY OF WASHINGTON, D.C. IN EACH CASE HIS OCEAN TRAVEL WAS BY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT AND HIS TRAVEL FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO WASHINGTON WAS AT YOUR EXPENSE. YOUR CLAIM IS FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR ONE TRIP.
THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOUR SON PAUL BECAME 21 YEARS OF AGE ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1958, AND THAT YOU WERE RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES AND ASSIGNED TO DUTY IN WASHINGTON, D.C., BY ORDERS DATED JUNE 27, 1959. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT THE FIRST TRIP WAS PRIOR TO YOUR ORDERS AND THE SECOND WAS AFTER YOUR SON HAD REACHED THE AGE OF 21. IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE SETTLEMENT IS LEGALLY CORRECT. HOWEVER, SINCE YOUR ORDERS FROM OVERSEAS DUTY WERE TO DUTY IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AND SINCE YOUR SON ORIGINALLY ACCOMPANIED YOU TO YOUR OVERSEAS STATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE, YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE COST OF ONE TRIP FROM THE WEST COAST TO WASHINGTON, D.C., IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED PRIOR TO THE RECEIPT OF YOUR ORDERS OR AFTER HE BECAME 21 YEARS OF AGE.
ENTITLEMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AT PUBLIC EXPENSE IS GOVERNED BY THE APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT TO SUCH STATUTE. SECTION 102 (G) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, AS AMENDED, 37 U.S.C. 231, PROVIDES THAT, THE TERM "DEPENDENT" SHALL INCLUDE AT ALL TIMES AND IN ALL PLACES THE LAWFUL WIFE AND UNMARRIED LEGITIMATE CHILDREN, UNDER 21 YEARS OF AGE, OF ANY MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICE. SECTION 303 (C) OF THE SAME ACT, 37 U.S.C. 253 (C), PROVIDES FOR THE TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS UPON PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION OF THE MEMBER. IT FURTHER PROVIDES FOR SUCH TRAVEL IN THE ABSENCE OF CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS ONLY UNDER UNUSUAL OR EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING WHEN THE MEMBER IS SERVING OVERSEAS. THE PROVISIONS AS TO TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS ARE NOT SELF-EXECUTING, HOWEVER, BUT REQUIRE THE ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS BY THE SECRETARIES OF THE SERVICES CONCERNED. PARAGRAPH 7000-9 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS (CHANGE 60, JULY 1, 1957) RESTRICTS TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS PRIOR TO CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS ISSUED TO THE MEMBER. PARAGRAPH 7009-3 OF THOSE REGULATIONS (SAME DATE) AUTHORIZES THE RETURN TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS TO THE UNITED STATES IN ADVANCE OF THE MEMBER'S CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS FOR CERTAIN REASONS INCLUDING LACK OF APPROPRIATE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES FOR CHILDREN. HOWEVER, IT LIMITS SUCH TRANSPORTATION TO THE PORT OF DEBARKATION BY SPECIFICALLY PROVIDING THAT TRANSPORTATION BEYOND THAT POINT WILL NOT BE FURNISHED PRIOR TO THE RETURN OF THE MEMBER TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS. THAT PARAGRAPH FURTHER PROVIDES THAT UPON COMPLETION OF THE CURRENT OVERSEAS TOUR OF DUTY AND TRANSFER OF THE MEMBER TO A STATION IN THE UNITED STATES, TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE IS THEN AUTHORIZED AT NOT TO EXCEED THE ENTITLEMENT FROM THE PORT OF DEBARKATION IN THE UNITED STATES TO THE NEW DUTY STATION.
UNDER THE PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING THE RETURN OF YOUR SON TO THE UNITED STATES PRIOR TO CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS DIRECTING YOUR RETURN, TRAVEL WAS AUTHORIZED ONLY TO THE PORT OF DEBARKATION IN THE UNITED STATES. FURTHER TRAVEL AT PUBLIC EXPENSE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL ORDERS WERE ISSUED FOR YOUR RETURN. AT THAT TIME YOU BECAME ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM THE PLACE WHERE THEY WERE THEN LOCATED TO YOUR NEW DUTY STATION NOT TO EXCEED TRANSPORTATION FROM THE PORT OF DEBARKATION TO SUCH DUTY STATION. SINCE YOUR SON PAUL'S RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES IN 1958 WAS PRIOR TO YOUR CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS, THERE WAS NO AUTHORITY FOR HIS TRAVEL BEYOND THE PORT OF DEBARKATION UNTIL THE ORDERS WERE ISSUED NOTWITHSTANDING THAT YOU SUBSEQUENTLY WERE ASSIGNED TO DUTY IN THE CITY TO WHICH HE TRAVELED. THE FACT THAT A MEMBER NO LONGER WILL BE ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION OF A CHILD UPON HIS NEXT PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION BECAUSE THE CHILD WILL HAVE REACHED 21 YEARS OF AGE BY THAT TIME DOES NOT, OF COURSE, GIVE RISE TO A RIGHT TO TRANSPORTATION OF SUCH CHILD IN ADVANCE OF AN ORDERED CHANGE OF STATION. WHEN YOU WERE RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES AND ASSIGNED TO DUTY IN WASHINGTON, D.C; YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION FOR YOUR SON PAUL SINCE HE THEN WAS 21 YEARS OLD.
ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF NOVEMBER 17, 1959, WAS CORRECT AND IS SUSTAINED.