B-158004, DEC. 13, 1965

B-158004: Dec 13, 1965

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

US 56: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR CLAIM DATED OCTOBER 22. WHICH CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION ON OCTOBER 12. YOU WERE REASSIGNED ON PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FROM FORT ORD TO THE WILLIAM BEAUMONT GENERAL HOSPITAL (3414). YOU WERE DIRECTED TO PROCEED JULY 10. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOU WERE PAID ADVANCE TRAVEL ALLOWANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $127.86. YOU WERE ADVISED BY PERSONNEL OF THE ARMY RECRUITING STATION THERE THAT THE WILLIAM BEAUMONT GENERAL HOSPITAL WAS LOCATED IN EL PASO. YOU WERE REQUIRED TO PERFORM FURTHER TRAVEL TO YOUR DUTY STATION IN EL PASO. YOU WERE SUBSEQUENTLY PAID $73.56 AS MILEAGE FOR THE DIRECT DISTANCE FROM FOR ORD. WHICH AMOUNT WAS OFFSET AGAINST THE TRAVEL ALLOWANCE ($127.86) ADVANCED TO YOU.

B-158004, DEC. 13, 1965

TO PRIVATE MICHAEL J. GILLIS, US 56:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR CLAIM DATED OCTOBER 22, 1965, TRANSMITTED HERE BY LIEUTENANT COLONEL HOWARD F. VIRE, INSPECTOR GENERAL, HEADQUARTERS, WILLIAM BEAUMONT GENERAL HOSPITAL, EL PASO, TEXAS, WITH THE REQUEST THAT IT BE CONSIDERED AS A RESUBMISSION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL MILEAGE ALLOWANCE FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED FROM FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA, TO BEAUMONT, TEXAS, AND THENCE TO WILLIAM BEAUMONT GENERAL HOSPITAL, EL PASO, TEXAS, WHICH CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION ON OCTOBER 12, 1965.

BY PARAGRAPH 234, SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 157, HEADQUARTERS, UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING CENTER, INFANTRY AND FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA, DATED JUNE 29, 1965, YOU WERE REASSIGNED ON PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FROM FORT ORD TO THE WILLIAM BEAUMONT GENERAL HOSPITAL (3414), TEXAS. YOU WERE DIRECTED TO PROCEED JULY 10, 1965. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOU WERE PAID ADVANCE TRAVEL ALLOWANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $127.86, FOR THE DISTANCE FROM FORT ORD TO BEAUMONT, TEXAS. IN YOUR CLAIM YOU STATED THAT UPON ARRIVAL AT BEAUMONT, TEXAS, JULY 23, 1965, YOU WERE ADVISED BY PERSONNEL OF THE ARMY RECRUITING STATION THERE THAT THE WILLIAM BEAUMONT GENERAL HOSPITAL WAS LOCATED IN EL PASO, TEXAS, AND YOU WERE REQUIRED TO PERFORM FURTHER TRAVEL TO YOUR DUTY STATION IN EL PASO. YOU WERE SUBSEQUENTLY PAID $73.56 AS MILEAGE FOR THE DIRECT DISTANCE FROM FOR ORD, CALIFORNIA, TO EL PASO, TEXAS, WHICH AMOUNT WAS OFFSET AGAINST THE TRAVEL ALLOWANCE ($127.86) ADVANCED TO YOU, LEAVING AN INDEBTEDNESS OF $54.30. ON YOUR TRAVEL VOUCHER YOU SHOW THAT YOU TRAVELED BY PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLE FROM FORT ORD TO BEAUMONT, TEXAS, AND FROM THAT PLACE TO EL PASO BY COMMERCIAL AIR.

IN YOUR CLAIM DATED JULY 26, 1965, YOU STATED THAT BECAUSE YOUR ORDERS INDICATED YOUR ASSIGNMENT WAS TO THE WILLIAM BEAUMONT GENERAL HOSPITAL, TEXAS, AND YOU WERE GIVEN A TRAVEL ADVANCE FROM FORT ORD TO BEAUMONT, TEXAS, YOU BELIEVED THAT BEAUMONT, TEXAS, WAS YOUR CORRECT NEW DUTY STATION. YOU STATED FURTHER THAT YOU HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACT THAT THE HOSPITAL WAS LOCATED IN EL PASO, TEXAS, AND IT WAS ONLY UPON ARRIVAL AT BEAUMONT THAT YOU WERE ADVISED AS TO THE CORRECT PLACE OF ASSIGNMENT. YOU THEREFORE CLAIMED MILEAGE FOR THE DISTANCE FROM FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA, TO BEAUMONT, TEXAS, AND THENCE TO EL PASO, TEXAS, LESS THE AMOUNT PREVIOUSLY PAID FOR THE DIRECT DISTANCE FROM FORT ORD TO EL PASO, TEXAS.

BY SETTLEMENT DATED OCTOBER 12, 1965, YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN. IN YOUR RESUBMITTED CLAIM DATED OCTOBER 22, 1965, YOU STATED THAT YOU HAD REQUESTED PERSONNEL AT FORT ORD FOR A VERIFICATION OF THE LOCATION OF YOUR NEW STATION AND YOU WERE ASSURED IT WAS LOCATED IN BEAUMONT, TEXAS. IN TRANSMITTING YOUR CLAIM, COLONEL VIRE STATED THAT YOU WERE TOLD BY PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND WERE AUTHORIZED IN WRITING BY YOUR PERSONNEL SECTION TO DRAW ADVANCE TRAVEL PAY FOR TRAVEL TO BEAUMONT, TEXAS, AND THAT THE VOUCHER WAS PAID BY THE FINANCE SECTION AT THAT STATION. ON THE BASIS THAT YOU WERE A PRIVATE WITH LESS THAN 3 MONTHS' SERVICE AND IN VIEW OF THE ERRORS THAT WERE MADE BY THE PERSONNEL AND FINANCE SECTIONS OF YOUR FORMER DUTY STATION, HE REQUESTED THAT FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO YOUR CLAIM.

UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH M4150, JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO THE PERTINENT STATUTE, 37 U.S.C. 404, THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION TO A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES UPON PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION, IS TO FURNISH HIM WITH TRANSPORTATION IN KIND OR REIMBURSEMENT THEREFOR ON A MILEAGE BASIS FROM HIS OLD TO HIS NEW DUTY STATION. THE RIGHT OF MILITARY PERSONNEL TO REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES INCLUDING MILEAGE ALLOWANCE AND THE EXTENT OF SUCH REIMBURSEMENT, IS DEPENDENT UPON THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL TRAVEL DIRECTED BY COMPETENT ORDERS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH RIGHT NECESSARILY MUST HAVE AS ITS BASIS, THE ORDERS DIRECTING THE SPECIFIC TRAVEL.

THE ORDERS DATED JUNE 29, 1965, DIRECTING YOU TO REPORT TO YOUR NEW DUTY STATION, THE WILLIAM BEAUMONT GENERAL HOSPITAL, TEXAS, REQUIRED THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL TRAVEL ONLY TO THE CITY IN WHICH THE HOSPITAL WAS LOCATED. THOSE ORDERS DID NOT DIRECT TRAVEL TO BEAUMONT, TEXAS. THE FACT THAT THE ORDERS DID NOT SPECIFY THE CITY AND THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW THE LOCATION OF YOUR NEW DUTY STATION, AFFORDS NO BASIS TO EXCEPT YOU FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. FURTHERMORE, WHILE UNFORTUNATE, THE FACT THAT YOU WERE ERRONEOUSLY ADVISED BY PERSONNEL AT YOUR OLD DUTY STATION AS TO THE LOCATION OF THE HOSPITAL, AFFORDS NO BASIS UPON WHICH WE MAY ALLOW YOUR CLAIM. IT IS A WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC STATUTORY PROVISION, THE UNITED STATES IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ERRONEOUS ACTS OF ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, OR EMPLOYEES, EVEN THOUGH COMMITTED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES. SEE ROBERTSON V. SICHEL, 127 U.S. 507, 515; GERMAN BANK V. UNITED STATES, 148 U.S. 573; 19 COMP. GEN. 503 AND 22 ID. 221. WHILE WE APPRECIATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING YOUR TRAVEL, PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO SETTLE CLAIMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AND REGULATIONS.

ACCORDINGLY, WE HAVE NO CHOICE OTHER THAN TO SUSTAIN THE SETTLEMENT DATED OCTOBER 12, 1965, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM.