B-145572, APR. 26, 1961

B-145572: Apr 26, 1961

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

AT THE TIME YOUR WIFE'S RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES WAS AUTHORIZED YOU WERE STATIONED IN JAPAN. YOU WERE TRANSFERRED FROM SAGAMI. IN PRESENTING YOUR CLAIM YOU STATED YOU WERE ADVISED IN FEBRUARY 1960. YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR HER TRAVEL IN THE UNITED STATES WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT IT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER PARAGRAPH 7009-3 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS. IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT NO RIGHT TO TRAVEL IN THE UNITED STATES ACCRUED UNDER THE REGULATIONS BUT CONTEND THAT IT WAS NOT THE INTENT OF THE REGULATIONS TO DISALLOW REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED IN YOUR CLAIM. YOU SAY THAT HAD YOUR WIFE ACCOMPANIED YOU TO KYUSHU AND TRAVELED TO YOUR HOME UPON YOUR RETIREMENT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE PAID MORE FOR HER TRAVEL THAN THE AMOUNT CLAIMED.

B-145572, APR. 26, 1961

TO MAJOR LEO S. HANSON, AUS, RETIRED:

YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 31, 1961, REQUESTS REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT OF MARCH 1, 1961, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL FROM SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, TO RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, APRIL 14 TO JULY 15, 1960.

LETTER ORDER 2-103 ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 11, 1960, BY HEADQUARTERS, UNITED STATES ARMY JAPAN, AND 6TH LOGISTICAL COMMAND, APO 343, AUTHORIZED YOUR WIFE, UPON CALL OF THE TERMINAL COMMANDER, TO PROCEED TO THE U.S. ARMY TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, JAPAN, FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION TO THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES. THE ORDERS AUTHORIZED TRAVEL BY GOVERNMENT SPACE AVAILABLE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION TO PORT OF DEBARKATION IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES ONLY, SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF THE CHARGE APPLICABLE FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION. YOUR WIFE DEPARTED JAPAN ON MARCH 18, 1960, AND ARRIVED IN CALIFORNIA ON MARCH 28, 1960. SHE TRAVELED TO BALTIMORE BY COMMERCIAL AIR ON APRIL 14, 1960, AND ON JULY 15, 1960, SHE FURTHER TRAVELED TO RICHMOND, VIRGINIA.

AT THE TIME YOUR WIFE'S RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES WAS AUTHORIZED YOU WERE STATIONED IN JAPAN. BY PARAGRAPH 20, SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 92, DATED APRIL 27, 1960, YOU WERE TRANSFERRED FROM SAGAMI, APO 343, TO HAKATA, APO 929. PARAGRAPH 1, SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 242, DATED OCTOBER 21, 1960, TRANSFERRED YOU TO OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RETIREMENT. PARAGRAPH 45, SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 243, DATED OCTOBER 24, 1960, EFFECTED YOUR RETIREMENT ON NOVEMBER 30, 1960.

IN PRESENTING YOUR CLAIM YOU STATED YOU WERE ADVISED IN FEBRUARY 1960, THAT YOU WOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO KYUSHU, JAPAN, UPON LEASE OF A COLD STORAGE PLANT THERE; THAT NO FIRM DATE COULD THEN BE GIVEN FOR THE TRANSFER; AND SINCE YOU EXPECTED TO RETIRE ON NOVEMBER 30, 1960, YOU DECIDED TO SEND YOUR WIFE TO YOUR HOME, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA. YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR HER TRAVEL IN THE UNITED STATES WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT IT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER PARAGRAPH 7009-3 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS. IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT NO RIGHT TO TRAVEL IN THE UNITED STATES ACCRUED UNDER THE REGULATIONS BUT CONTEND THAT IT WAS NOT THE INTENT OF THE REGULATIONS TO DISALLOW REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED IN YOUR CLAIM. ALSO, YOU SAY THAT HAD YOUR WIFE ACCOMPANIED YOU TO KYUSHU AND TRAVELED TO YOUR HOME UPON YOUR RETIREMENT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE PAID MORE FOR HER TRAVEL THAN THE AMOUNT CLAIMED.

SECTION 303 (C) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, AS AMENDED, 37 U.S.C. 253 (C), PROVIDES FOR THE TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS UPON PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION OF THE MEMBER, INCLUDING THE CHANGE FROM LAST STATION TO HOME. IT FURTHER PROVIDES FOR SUCH TRAVEL IN THE ABSENCE OF CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS UNDER UNUSUAL OR EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING INSTANCES WHEN THE MEMBER IS SERVING OVERSEAS. THOSE PROVISIONS, HOWEVER, ARE NOT SELF-EXECUTING BUT REQUIRE THE ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS BY THE SECRETARIES OF THE SERVICES CONCERNED. PARAGRAPH 7000-9 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROHIBITS TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE PRIOR TO CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS ISSUED TO THE MEMBER EXCEPT WHEN THE VOUCHER 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. SUCH A CERTIFICATE WAS NOT ISSUED IN YOUR CASE AND MERE GENERAL KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR PROSPECTIVE PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE REGULATIONS. 34 COMP. GEN. 241. WHILE PARAGRAPH 7009-3 OF THE REGULATIONS PROVIDES FOR RETURN TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEMBER'S CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS, SUCH TRANSPORTATION, AS YOU ARE AWARE, MAY BE FURNISHED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE ONLY UNDER UNUSUAL OR EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES AND THAT PARAGRAPH AS WELL AS THE SUBSECTION RELATING TO THE UNUSUAL OR EMERGENCY CONDITION APPLICABLE IN EACH CASE MUST BE CITED IN THE ORDERS AS AUTHORITY. THAT WAS NOT DONE IN THE CASE OF YOUR WIFE'S ORDERS, SINCE NONE OF THE UNUSUAL OR EMERGENCY CONDITIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THE REGULATIONS APPEAR TO HAVE EXISTED AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THAT PARAGRAPH OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS MAY NOT BE APPLIED IN YOUR CASE.

IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE AND SINCE YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL TO THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT AUTHORIZED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE--- THE ORDERS AUTHORIZING HER RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES PRIOR TO YOUR CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS OF APRIL 27, 1960, PROVIDING ONLY FOR HER TRAVEL TO THE PORT OF DEBARKATION IN THE UNITED STATES ON A SPACE AVAILABLE BASIS UPON PAYMENT OF THE APPLICABLE CHARGE--- WE MAY NOT CONCLUDE THAT A RIGHT TO HER TRAVEL AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE ACCRUED UNDER THOSE ORDERS. TRAVEL FROM THE PORT OF DEBARKATION AT PUBLIC EXPENSE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE CONTROLLING REGULATIONS UNTIL ORDERS WERE ISSUED EFFECTING YOUR RETIREMENT. AT THAT TIME YOU BECAME ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION FOR YOUR WIFE FROM THE PLACE WHERE SHE WAS THEN LOCATED TO YOUR HOME AT RICHMOND NOT TO EXCEED TRANSPORTATION FROM THE PORT TO YOUR HOME. SINCE YOUR WIFE WAS AT RICHMOND WHEN THE ORDERS EFFECTING YOUR RETIREMENT WERE ISSUED, NO TRAVEL WAS REQUIRED UNDER SUCH ORDERS AND, THEREFORE, NOTHING IS DUE YOU ON THE BASIS OF YOUR RETIREMENT ORDERS. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO PROPER BASIS UNDER THE REGULATIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM, NOTWITHSTANDING THE COST OF YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL MAY BE LESS THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF SHE HAD ACCOMPANIED YOU TO YOUR NEW STATION IN JAPAN AND SUBSEQUENTLY TRAVELED TO THE UNITED STATES AND TO YOUR HOME INCIDENT TO THE ORDERS EFFECTING YOUR RETIREMENT.