B-149999, NOV. 5, 1962

B-149999: Nov 5, 1962

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

OF WHICH YOU WERE A MEMBER. WAS ORDERED RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY EFFECTIVE AUGUST 10. WAS DIRECTED TO PROCEED TO ITS HOME STATION. SUCH ORDERS APPARENTLY WERE ISSUED PURSUANT TO DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY MESSAGE DATED APRIL 27. TO BE WITH HER MOTHER BECAUSE SHE WAS IN HER SEVENTH MONTH OF PREGNANCY. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 10. FOR THE REASON THAT SUCH TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY ORDERS AND THE CLAIM WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A CERTIFICATE OF THE COMMANDING OFFICER. THAT YOU WERE ADVISED PRIOR TO THE TIME YOUR DEPENDENTS PERFORMED THEIR TRAVEL THAT SUCH ORDERS WOULD BE ISSUED. YOU STATE YOU BELIEVE YOU WERE ENTITLED TO DEPENDENTS' TRAVEL TO YOUR PERMANENT DUTY STATION AND THEIR RETURN HOME AS LONG AS YOU DID NOT SUBMIT A CLAIM FOR THEIR TRAVEL BACK TO YOUR DUTY STATION OR TO ANOTHER STATION IF YOU WERE TRANSFERRED.

B-149999, NOV. 5, 1962

TO MR. KARL W. HERING:

YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1962, REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IN SETTLEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 1962, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS' TRAVEL FROM AUGUSTA, GEORGIA, TO SALAMANCA, NEW YORK, INCIDENT TO YOUR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY UNDER ORDERS OF JUNE 27,1962.

BY MOVEMENT ORDER 8, HEADQUARTERS FORT GORDON, FORT GORDON, GEORGIA, DATED JUNE 27, 1962, THE 402 CA CO. (ARMY RESERVE), OF WHICH YOU WERE A MEMBER, WAS ORDERED RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY EFFECTIVE AUGUST 10, 1962, AND WAS DIRECTED TO PROCEED TO ITS HOME STATION, BUFFALO, NEW YORK, AUGUST 5, 1962. SUCH ORDERS APPARENTLY WERE ISSUED PURSUANT TO DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY MESSAGE DATED APRIL 27, 1962, WHICH DIRECTED THE RELEASE OF YOUR UNIT AT THE TIME INDICATED ABOVE.

ON JULY 31, 1962, YOU FILED A CLAIM FOR TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE FOR THE TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM AUGUSTA, GEORGIA, TO SALAMANCA, NEW YORK, PERFORMED MARCH 12 TO 14, 1962. YOU EXPLAINED THAT YOUR WIFE TRAVELED TO SALAMANCA, NEW YORK, RATHER THAN TO YOUR HOME OF RECORD, EDEN, NEW YORK, TO BE WITH HER MOTHER BECAUSE SHE WAS IN HER SEVENTH MONTH OF PREGNANCY. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 1962, FOR THE REASON THAT SUCH TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY ORDERS AND THE CLAIM WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A CERTIFICATE OF THE COMMANDING OFFICER, OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HEADQUARTERS ISSUED THE ORDERS, THAT YOU WERE ADVISED PRIOR TO THE TIME YOUR DEPENDENTS PERFORMED THEIR TRAVEL THAT SUCH ORDERS WOULD BE ISSUED.

IN YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1962, YOU STATE YOU BELIEVE YOU WERE ENTITLED TO DEPENDENTS' TRAVEL TO YOUR PERMANENT DUTY STATION AND THEIR RETURN HOME AS LONG AS YOU DID NOT SUBMIT A CLAIM FOR THEIR TRAVEL BACK TO YOUR DUTY STATION OR TO ANOTHER STATION IF YOU WERE TRANSFERRED. FURTHERMORE, WITH RESPECT TO THE MOVEMENT ORDER, YOU STATE THAT THERE WERE CONFLICTING STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE RELEASE DATES OF THOSE ACTIVATED OCTOBER 1961. SINCE YOUR WIFE WAS EXPECTING A BABY LATE IN MAY OR EARLY JUNE 1962, AND YOU THOUGHT IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU WOULD BE RELEASED DURING THAT PERIOD, YOU CONSIDERED IT ADVISABLE TO SEND YOU WIFE HOME IN MARCH 1962. THEREFORE YOU BELIEVE YOUR CLAIM WAS JUSTIFIED AND REQUEST A MORE FAVORABLE DECISION.

SECTION 303 (C) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, AS AMENDED, 37 U.S.C. 253 (C), PROVIDES THAT UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARIES CONCERNED, MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES WHEN ORDERED TO MAKE A CHANGE OF PERMANENT STATION SHALL BE ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS OR TO REIMBURSEMENT THEREFOR. PARAGRAPH 7000 -9 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO THAT PROVISION OF LAW, PROVIDES, HOWEVER, THAT TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE IS NOT AUTHORIZED WHEN THE DEPENDENTS DEPARTED THE OLD STATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ORDERS AND THE VOUCHER IS NOT SUPPORTED BY A CERTIFICATE BY 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. UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS, TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL THE MEMBER HAS DEFINITE KNOWLEDGE OF AN IMPENDING CHANGE OF STATION. MERE RUMORS AND CONFLICTING STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE RELEASE DATE OF YOUR UNIT IS NOT CONSIDERED AS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE REGULATIONS. 34 COMP. GEN. 241.

IN YOUR CASE, IT SEEMS APPARENT THAT THE PRIMARY REASON FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS' TRAVEL PRIOR TO YOUR SEPARATION WAS FOR PERSONAL REASONS RATHER THAN BECAUSE OF YOUR PROSPECTIVE RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY. IN THIS REGARD, NO CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY THE ORDER-ISSUING AUTHORITY THAT YOU WERE ADVISED PRIOR TO DEPENDENTS' TRAVEL, THAT RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY ORDERS WOULD BE ISSUED AND IT WOULD SEEM IN VIEW OF THE LENGTH OF TIME WHICH ELAPSED BETWEEN THE DATE YOUR DEPENDENTS TRAVELED AND THE ISSUANCE OF RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY ORDERS, THAT SUCH A CERTIFICATE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY ISSUED. CONSEQUENTLY, REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE EARLY TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE LAW AND GOVERNING REGULATIONS, AND THE SETTLEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1962, IS SUSTAINED.