B-146150, AUG. 3, 1961

B-146150, AUG. 3, 1961

TO LIEUTENANT COLONEL SAM F. FLEMING:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 25, 1961, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR SETTLEMENT OF MAY 8, 1961, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS (WIFE AND THREE SONS) FROM SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, TO PORTLAND, INDIANA, AND FOR DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE INCIDENT TO YOUR ORDERS OF NOVEMBER 23, 1960.

LETTER ORDER 7-254 ISSUED JULY 25, 1960, BY HEADQUARTERS, UNITED STATES ARMY, ALASKA, APO 949, AUTHORIZED YOUR WIFE AND THREE SONS TO PROCEED ON A MILITARY VESSEL ON A SPACE AVAILABLE BASIS FROM WHITTIER, ALASKA, TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, ON OR ABOUT JULY 26, 1960, AND RETURN ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 1, 1960. YOU INDICATE THAT SUCH TRAVEL WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF A VACATION. THEY DEPARTED WHITTIER JULY 27 AND ARRIVED IN SAN FRANCISCO JULY 30, BUT IN VIEW OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY GENERAL ORDER NO. 32 ISSUED AUGUST 22, 1960, INACTIVATING THE PORT OF WHITTIER AND DESIGNATING IT AS A SUBINSTALLATION OF FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1960, YOU STATE THAT RATHER THAN HAVE YOUR FAMILY RETURN TO ALASKA AND AT AN EARLY DATE BE RETURNED TO THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, YOU SENT THEM TO YOUR OFFICIAL HOME OF RECORD. THIS PERMITTED YOUR CHILDREN TO COMMENCE THE FALL TERM OF SCHOOL THERE.

BY PARAGRAPH 27, SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 215, DATED NOVEMBER 23, 1960, YOU WERE RELIEVED FROM YOUR ASSIGNMENT AT THE PORT OF WHITTIER AND REASSIGNED TO FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY. YOU REQUEST RECONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR THE REASONS THAT YOU REQUESTED A SEVEN-MONTH EXTENSION OF YOUR TOUR IN ALASKA UNTIL JUNE 1, 1961, SO AS TO AVOID A BREAK IN YOUR SONS' SCHOOL YEAR; THAT YOUR DEPENDENTS WOULD NOT HAVE GONE ON LEAVE TO THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES IN LATE JULY IF YOU HAD HAD INFORMATION THAT THE PORT OF WHITTIER WAS TO BE INACTIVATED SEPTEMBER 1, AND THAT WHEN YOU LEARNED OF THE INACTIVATION ORDER YOU DID NOT HAVE THEM RETURN TO ALASKA SO AS TO AVOID A BREAK IN YOUR SONS' SCHOOL YEAR. ALSO, YOU SAY THAT ALL DEPENDENTS WITH SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN WERE RETURNED TO THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 7, 1960, BUT AS COMMANDING OFFICER YOU HAD TO REMAIN AT THE PORT UNTIL IT WAS COMPLETELY INACTIVATED ALTHOUGH OTHER MEMBERS' TOURS WERE CUT SHORT AND THEY WERE RETURNED TO THE STATES.

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. PARAGRAPH 7000-9 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO THAT ACT, PROVIDES THAT TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS IS NOT AUTHORIZED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE INCIDENT TO THE MEMBER'S PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION WHEN THE DEPENDENTS DEPART THE OLD PERMANENT STATION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS. ALSO, PARAGRAPH 9003-1 OF THE REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT THE DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE WILL NOT BE PAYABLE UNDER THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN PARAGRAPH 7000-9. AN EXCEPTION IS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 7000- 9, 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. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE REQUIRED CERTIFICATE, THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO YOU FOR TRANSPORTATION PROCURED AT PERSONAL EXPENSE FOR TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS BEYOND THE PORT OF DEBARKATION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF YOUR ORDERS, NOR FOR PAYMENT OF THE DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE. THE REASONS THAT YOU GAVE FOR REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM DO NOT AFFORD ANY BASIS FOR ALLOWANCE WITHOUT THE CERTIFICATE.

WHILE GENERAL ORDER NO. 32 PROVIDED THAT EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1960, THE PORT OF WHITTIER WOULD BE PLACED IN AN INACTIVE STATUS AND DESIGNATED AS A SUBINSTALLATION OF FORT RICHARDSON, SUCH CHANGE IN STATUS DID NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT ALL PERSONNEL WOULD BE TRANSFERRED FROM THAT STATION SINCE MANY MEMBERS PERFORM DUTY AT STATIONS DESIGNATED AS INACTIVE INSTALLATIONS. HENCE, THAT ORDER, STANDING ALONE, MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED AS ADVANCED NOTICE THAT CHANGE-OF-STATION ORDERS WOULD BE ISSUED TO YOU. HOWEVER, IT APPARENTLY WAS ON THE BASIS OF THAT ORDER THAT YOU SENT YOUR DEPENDENTS TO YOUR HOME OF RECORD IN INDIANA SINCE YOU DO NOT ALLEGE THAT YOU RECEIVED ANY OTHER NOTICE THAT YOU WOULD BE ISSUED CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS. NEITHER DOES THE RECORD SHOW WHERE YOUR DEPENDENTS WERE LOCATED WHEN YOU RECEIVED NOTICE OF GENERAL ORDER 32 AND DECIDED, BECAUSE OF THAT ORDER, TO SEND THEM TO INDIANA RATHER THAN RETURN THEM TO YOUR STATION IN ALASKA.

ACCORDINGLY, ON THE PRESENT RECORD, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY TO ALLOW ANY AMOUNT INCIDENT TO YOUR CLAIM AND THE SETTLEMENT OF MAY 8, 1961, IS SUSTAINED.