B-145267, MAY 25, 1961

B-145267: May 25, 1961

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

WALL: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 27. YOU WERE RELIEVED FROM ASSIGNMENT AT THAT COMMAND AND ASSIGNED TO DUTY WITH UNITED STATES ARMY ARMOR SCHOOL TROOPS AT FORT KNOX. YOU SAY THAT YOUR CLAIM SHOULD BE ALLOWED BECAUSE YOUR FAMILY COULD NOT REMAIN AT THE HOUSE WHERE THEY RESIDED IN LOS ALTOS AFTER YOUR RETURN FROM OVERSEAS UNLESS A 12-MONTH LEASE WAS SIGNED. THAT HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE PERIOD OF TEMPORARY DUTY AT FORT LEAVENWORTH YOU WOULD HAVE MOVED YOUR DEPENDENTS DIRECTLY TO FORT KNOX. WHICH YOU WERE PREVENTED FROM DOING BY A FORT KNOX HOUSING POLICY THAT REQUIRED YOU TO BE ON DUTY THERE PRIOR TO BEING ELIGIBLE FOR GOVERNMENT QUARTERS. THE TRANSPORTATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE OF DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES IS GOVERNED BY PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 303 (C) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949.

B-145267, MAY 25, 1961

TO CAPTAIN STANLEY W. WALL:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 27, 1961, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF SETTLEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 17, 1961, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR MONETARY ALLOWANCE IN LIEU OF TRANSPORTATION IN KIND AND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE FOR THE MOVEMENT OF YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM LOS ALTOS TO SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, ON JULY 1 AND 2, 1960, INCIDENT TO SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 51, DATED MAY 13, 1960.

BY PARAGRAPH 16 OF SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 51, ISSUED BY HEADQUARTERS, 7TH LOGISTICAL COMMAND, APO 301, YOU WERE RELIEVED FROM ASSIGNMENT AT THAT COMMAND AND ASSIGNED TO DUTY WITH UNITED STATES ARMY ARMOR SCHOOL TROOPS AT FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY. THE ORDERS FURTHER PROVIDED FOR APPROXIMATELY 16 WEEKS OF TEMPORARY DUTY EN ROUTE AT FORT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS, BEGINNING AUGUST 17 OR 18, 1960.

IT APPEARS THAT PURSUANT TO YOUR ORDERS FOR OVERSEAS DUTY YOUR DEPENDENTS HAD MOVED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE FROM FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY, YOUR THEN PERMANENT STATION, TO LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA, AND THAT THEY REMAINED THERE DURING YOUR OVERSEAS TOUR OF DUTY. YOU RETURNED TO THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES ON JULY 3, 1960, WITH PERMANENT DUTY STATION ASSIGNMENT AT FORT KNOX. YOU CERTIFIED THAT YOUR DEPENDENTS TRAVELED FROM LOS ALTOS TO SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, ON JULY 1 AND 2, 1960, WHERE IT APPEARS THEY STILL RESIDE.

YOU SAY THAT YOUR CLAIM SHOULD BE ALLOWED BECAUSE YOUR FAMILY COULD NOT REMAIN AT THE HOUSE WHERE THEY RESIDED IN LOS ALTOS AFTER YOUR RETURN FROM OVERSEAS UNLESS A 12-MONTH LEASE WAS SIGNED, AND THAT HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE PERIOD OF TEMPORARY DUTY AT FORT LEAVENWORTH YOU WOULD HAVE MOVED YOUR DEPENDENTS DIRECTLY TO FORT KNOX, WHICH YOU WERE PREVENTED FROM DOING BY A FORT KNOX HOUSING POLICY THAT REQUIRED YOU TO BE ON DUTY THERE PRIOR TO BEING ELIGIBLE FOR GOVERNMENT QUARTERS. YOU ALSO SAY THAT THE COST OF MOVING YOUR FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD GOODS TO FORT KNOX WOULD EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF THE DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE CLAIMED.

THE TRANSPORTATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE OF DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES IS GOVERNED BY PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 303 (C) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, AS AMENDED, 37 U.S.C. 253 (C). THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSES IS AUTHORIZED FOR TRAVEL FROM OTHER THAN THE OLD PERMANENT STATION TO OTHER THAN THE NEW PERMANENT STATION, AS IN YOUR CASE, ARE CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 7059 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS WHICH PROVIDES:

"THE SECRETARY CONCERNED, OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE, MAY AUTHORIZE TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE FROM A LOCATION OTHER THAN THE OLD PERMANENT STATION TO A LOCATION OTHER THAN THE NEW PERMANENT STATION, PROVIDED THAT ENTITLEMENT WILL NOT EXCEED THAT FROM THE OLD PERMANENT STATION TO THE NEW PERMANENT STATION. * * *"

THUS, IN THE ABSENCE OF A PROPER AUTHORIZATION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR FAMILY FROM LOS ALTOS TO SANTA CLARA PAYMENT OF AN ALLOWANCE FOR SUCH TRAVEL MAY NOT BE MADE.

SECTION 303 (C) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, 63 STAT. 814, AS AMENDED BY SECTION 2 (12) OF THE CAREER INCENTIVE ACT OF 1955, 69 STAT. 21, 37 U.S.C. 253 (C), AUTHORIZES, UNDER REGULATIONS APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY CONCERNED, PAYMENT OF A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE TO A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES WHOSE DEPENDENTS ARE AUTHORIZED TO MOVE AND ACTUALLY MOVE IN CONNECTION WITH HIS PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION. PURSUANT TO SUCH AUTHORITY, PARAGRAPH 9003-6 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS WAS PROMULGATED AND PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:

"THE ALLOWANCE CONTEMPLATED BY THIS CHAPTER WILL NOT BE PAYABLE IN CONNECTION WITH PERMANENT CHANGE-OF-STATION TRAVEL PERFORMED:

"6. FOR TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS UNDER THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN PAR. 7059 UNLESS THE PAYMENT OF TRAVEL ALLOWANCES OR THE FURNISHING OF TRANSPORTATION FOR DEPENDENTS IS AUTHORIZED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SERVICE CONCERNED OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE; * * *"

THUS, PAYMENT OF A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE INCIDENT TO TRAVEL COMING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF PARAGRAPH 7059 OF THE REGULATIONS IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNLESS THE PAYMENT OF TRAVEL ALLOWANCES OR THE FURNISHING OF TRANSPORTATION FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED.

WHILE YOUR REASONS FOR MOVING YOUR FAMILY FROM LOS ALTOS TO SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, MAY HAVE BEEN RELATED TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF YOUR CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS, THE NECESSARY AUTHORIZATION FOR SUCH TRAVEL BY THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE, HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED AND, HENCE, UNDER THE ABOVE-CITED PARAGRAPHS OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS THE PAYMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COSTS AND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE FOR THE TRAVEL OF YOUR FAMILY IS NOT AUTHORIZED.

REGARDING YOUR STATEMENT THAT THE COST OF MOVING YOUR FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD GOODS TO FORT KNOX WOULD EXCEED THE CLAIMED DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE PAYMENT OF AN ALLOWANCE IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW OR REGULATION FOR THE TRAVEL AS PERFORMED BY YOUR DEPENDENTS, THE REIMBURSABLE COST WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED HAD THEY TRAVELED TO YOUR PERMANENT DUTY STATION, IS NOT A PROPER ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION.

FOR THE REASONS ABOVE SET OUT, THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM BY OUR SETTLEMENT OF FEBRUARY 17, 1961, WAS CORRECT AND THE SETTLEMENT MUST BE SUSTAINED.