B-153284, FEB. 26, 1964

B-153284: Feb 26, 1964

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

GRAMONT: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED DECEMBER 16. BY THOSE ORDERS YOU WERE RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY ON OCTOBER 31. IT IS SHOWN THAT YOUR DEPENDENTS TRAVELED FROM FORT HAMILTON. THAT YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WERE SHIPPED FROM CAMERON STATION. SINCE THE REGULATIONS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME PROVIDE THAT RETIRED MEMBERS SHALL BE ENTITLED TO SELECT A HOME FOR RETIREMENT AND BE PAID TRAVEL ALLOWANCES FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS TO THAT POINT IF TRAVEL THERETO IS COMPLETED WITHIN 1 YEAR. THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED AUGUST 21. FOR THE REASON THAT THE RECORD FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE TRAVEL CLAIMED WAS SUFFICIENTLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNING REGULATIONS.

B-153284, FEB. 26, 1964

TO MR. RAYMOND J. GRAMONT:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED DECEMBER 16, 1963, WITH ENCLOSURES, IN EFFECT REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF SETTLEMENT DATED AUGUST 21, 1962, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR ALLOWANCES FOR PERSONAL TRAVEL AND DEPENDENTS' TRANSPORTATION FROM FORT HAMILTON, NEW YORK, TOBLADENSBURG, MARYLAND, INCIDENT TO YOUR ORDERS OF OCTOBER 13, 1959.

BY THOSE ORDERS YOU WERE RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY ON OCTOBER 31, 1959, AT FORT HAMILTON, NEW YORK, AND PLACED ON THE RETIRED LIST ON NOVEMBER 1, 1959. ON THE CERTIFICATE FOR TRAVEL TO HOME OF SELECTION, FORM O-1286, ORIGINALLY EXECUTED BY YOU, IT IS SHOWN THAT YOUR DEPENDENTS TRAVELED FROM FORT HAMILTON, NEW YORK, TO SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA; THAT YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WERE SHIPPED FROM CAMERON STATION, VIRGINIA, TO BLADENSBURG, MARYLAND; AND THAT YOU REQUESTED THAT YOUR CHECK BE MAILED TO ITASCA, TEXAS. SINCE THE REGULATIONS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME PROVIDE THAT RETIRED MEMBERS SHALL BE ENTITLED TO SELECT A HOME FOR RETIREMENT AND BE PAID TRAVEL ALLOWANCES FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS TO THAT POINT IF TRAVEL THERETO IS COMPLETED WITHIN 1 YEAR, AND IN VIEW OF THE DISCREPANCY IN ADDRESSES SHOWN ON THE FORM, THE ARMY FINANCE CENTER, BY LETTER DATED MAY 11, 1962, RETURNED THE CLAIM FORM TO YOU FOR CORRECTION OF ADDRESSES, IF YOU WISHED TO CLARIFY THE FORM. SUBSEQUENTLY YOU SUBMITTED ANOTHER CERTIFICATE WHICH SHOWS THAT YOU SELECTED BLADENSBURG, MARYLAND, AS YOUR HOME FOR RETIREMENT, AND THAT YOUR DEPENDENTS DEPARTED FROM FORT HAMILTON, NEW YORK, ON OCTOBER 31, 1959, AND ARRIVED AT BLADENSBURG IN NOVEMBER 1960.

BY LETTER DATED JULY 18, 1962, THE ARMY FINANCE CENTER FORWARDED YOUR CLAIM TO OUR CLAIMS DIVISION FOR DIRECT SETTLEMENT AS A DOUBTFUL CLAIM. THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED AUGUST 21, 1962, FOR THE REASON THAT THE RECORD FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE TRAVEL CLAIMED WAS SUFFICIENTLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNING REGULATIONS.

IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOUR MAINTAIN THAT YOU AND YOUR DEPENDENTS COMPLETED THE TRAVEL FROM FORT HAMILTON, NEW YORK, TO BLADENSBURG, MARYLAND, WITHIN 1 YEAR OF YOUR RETIREMENT DATE. YOU SAY THIS IS SUBSTANTIATED BY CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE TRANSPORTATION OFFICER, CAMERON STATION, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA, TO YOU, WHICH YOU ENCLOSED WITH YOUR LETTER. IN THAT CORRESPONDENCE IT IS STATED THAT YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WERE TENDERED TO A CARRIER AT RICHMOND QUARTERMASTER DEPOT, VIRGINIA, ON OCTOBER 20, 1960, FOR SHIPMENT, AND THAT THE SHIPMENT WAS DELIVERED TO HEADQUARTERS, CAMERON STATION, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA, A DISTANCE OF 115 MILES, ON THAT DAY. IT APPEARS TO BE YOUR VIEW THAT THE FACT THAT YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WERE TENDERED TO THE CARRIER ON OCTOBER 20, 1960, AT RICHMOND FOR SHIPMENT TO CAMERON STATION SUBSTANTIATES YOUR CONTENTION THAT YOU AND YOUR DEPENDENTS ACTUALLY PERFORMED TRAVEL TO BLADENSBURG WITHIN 1 YEAR FROM THE DATE OF YOUR RETIREMENT ON OCTOBER 31, 1959.

UPON YOUR RETIREMENT ON OCTOBER 31, 1959, YOU WERE ENTITLED TO TRAVEL ALLOWANCES FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR DEPENDENTS UNDER PARAGRAPH 4158 AND 7012 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO THE PERTINENT STATUTE, 37 U.S.C. 404 AND 406, FROM YOUR LAST DUTY STATION TO A SELECTED HOME, PROVIDED THE TRAVEL WAS COMPLETED TO THE SELECTED HOME WITHIN 1 YEAR AFTER THE TERMINATION OF ACTIVE DUTY. SEE 40 COMP. GEN. 375. THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS IS TO AUTHORIZE TRANSPORTATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE FOR A MEMBER AND HIS DEPENDENTS TO THE PLACE WHERE HE INTENDS TO RESIDE PERMANENTLY, FOLLOWING RETIREMENT. PAYMENT OF ALLOWANCES FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION IS NOT AUTHORIZED, HOWEVER, UNTIL A PLACE OF RESIDENCE HAS BEEN SELECTED AND TRAVEL TO IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESIDING THERE HAS BEEN PERFORMED BY THE MEMBER AND DEPENDENTS.

EVEN IF THE RECORD SHOWED THAT YOUR EFFECTS HAD BEEN MOVED TO BLADENSBURG, MARYLAND, WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT IMPOSED BY THE REGULATIONS, THAT FACT STANDING ALONE WOULD NOT SERVE TO ESTABLISH THAT YOU AND YOUR DEPENDENTS PERFORMED THE TRAVEL THERE, AT THAT TIME, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERMANENTLY RELOCATING YOUR HOUSEHOLD AT THAT PLACE. IN THIS REGARD THERE IS FOR NOTING THAT IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM IT IS SHOWN THAT YOU MADE THE STATEMENT THAT YOU AND YOUR DEPENDENTS TRAVELED TO SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA, AFTER YOUR RETIREMENT WITH THE INTENT TO ESTABLISH A RESIDENCE, BUT DID NOT REMAIN THERE. HOWEVER THERE IS NO SHOWING AS TO THE LENGTH OF YOUR RESIDENCE THERE, THE DATE OF YOUR DEPARTURE, WHETHER YOU PROCEEDED FROM THAT POINT DIRECTLY TO BLADENSBURG FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING YOUR HOME THERE, OR WHETHER YOU DID IN FACT RESIDE THERE.

WHILE IT MAY BE THAT YOU SUBSEQUENTLY PERFORMED THE TRAVEL TO BLADENSBURG, MARYLAND, AND ESTABLISHED A RESIDENCE THERE, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT YOU MAINTAINED THAT SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA, WAS YOUR SELECTED HOME UNTIL THE ARMY FINANCE CENTER ADVISED YOU THAT YOUR RIGHT TO PAYMENT TO THAT PLACE WAS NOT ESTABLISHED, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT YOU AND YOUR DEPENDENTS ACTUALLY ESTABLISHED A HOME AT BLADENSBURG, MARYLAND, WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE CITED REGULATIONS, THE VALIDITY OF YOUR CLAIM IS TOO DOUBTFUL TO WARRANT THIS OFFICE IN CERTIFYING IT FOR PAYMENT FROM PUBLIC FUNDS. SEE LONGWILL V. UNITED STATES, 17 CT.CL. 288, 291.

ACCORDINGLY THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM WAS PROPER ON THE BASIS OF THE EXISTING RECORD AND IS SUSTAINED.