B-158506, APR. 19, 1966

B-158506, APR. 19, 1966

TO TECHNICAL SERGEANT BILLY B. O-PRY:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 1, 1966, REQUESTING REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT DATED JANUARY 13, 1966, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR SUBSISTENCE (SEPARATE RATIONS) FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 19, 1964, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1965.

YOUR CLAIM IS SUPPORTED BY AF FORM 220 DATED OCTOBER 1, 1965, SIGNED BY LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROGER A. MCCAULLEY, AS COMMANDER, ON WHICH HE APPROVES YOUR REQUEST FOR AUTHORITY TO RATION SEPARATELY EFFECTIVE ON OCTOBER 19, 1964, AND PURPORTEDLY CONFIRMS VERBAL ORDERS GIVEN ON THAT DATE. IT IS REPORTED THAT DUE TO ERROR, YOU WERE "NOT SUBMITTED" FOR SEPARATE RATIONS ALTHOUGH AUTHORIZED TO RESIDE OFF THE BASE AND THAT AUTHORITY TO GRANT SEPARATE RATIONS WAS DELEGATED TO YOUR SQUADRON COMMANDER, COLONEL MCCAULLEY. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED, BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION FOR THE REASON THAT WHILE APPLICATION TO RATION SEPARATELY MAY CURRENTLY HAVE BEEN MADE, THERE IS NO OFFICIAL EVIDENCE THAT SUCH REQUEST WAS APPROVED BY PROPER AUTHORITY AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A PROPER AUTHORIZATION TO MESS SEPARATELY ISSUED AT OR PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE PERIOD INVOLVED, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY FOR ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM.

YOU HAVE NOW SUBMITTED A STATEMENT FROM COLONEL MCCAULLEY IN WHICH HE AVERS THAT PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1964 HE MADE A DECISION THAT ALL NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICERS WHO DESIRED TO MESS SEPARATELY WOULD BE PERMITTED TO DO SO; THAT AIRMAN SECOND CLASS DAVID I. MUNSON INTERVIEWS EACH INCOMING NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER, TELLS HIM HE MAY RATION SEPARATELY IF HE DESIRES, AND PREPARES THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE THEN PRESENTED TO COLONEL MCCAULLEY FOR SIGNATURE; THAT THIS PROCEDURE WAS IN EFFECT WHEN YOU REPORTED TO THE SQUADRON IN OCTOBER 1964; AND THAT ALTHOUGH APPARENTLY AIRMAN MUNSON NEGLECTED TO COMPLETE THE PAPER WORK, YOU DID HAVE HIS PERMISSION TO RATION SEPARATELY.

YOU ALSO FORWARDED A STATEMENT FROM AIRMAN MUNSON TO THE EFFECT THAT HE REMEMBERS INFORMING YOU THAT COLONEL MCCAULLEY HAD AUTHORIZED ALL NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICERS TO RATION SEPARATELY, THAT YOU INDICATED YOUR DESIRE TO RATION SEPARATELY, THAT HE EITHER FORGOT TO PREPARE OR ELSE PREPARED AND LOST THE NECESSARY FORMS BUT THAT COLONEL MCCAULLEY'S SIGNATURE ON THE FORM WAS A ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TO DOCUMENT PERMISSION WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN GIVEN.

SECTION 402/B), TITLE 37, U.S. CODE, AUTHORIZED THE PAYMENT OF A BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR SUBSISTENCE ON A DAILY BASIS TO ENLISTED MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES WHEN "PERMISSION TO MESS SEPARATELY IS GRANTED.' PARAGRAPHS 30406 AND 30407, AIR FORCE MANUAL 177-105, JULY 1, 1964, PROVIDED THAT AF FORM 220 WOULD BE USED AS APPLICATION, AUTHORIZATION AND SUBSTANTIATING DOCUMENT TO CREDIT PAYMENT OF BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR SUBSISTENCE WHEN AN AIRMAN WAS PERMITTED TO RATION SEPARATELY AND IT WAS STATED EXPLICITLY THAT AIRMEN SHOULD "SUBMIT THE APPLICATION TO THE UNIT COMMANDER IMMEDIATELY UPON REPORTING TO A NEW STATION OR OTHERWISE BECOMING ELIGIBLE TO RATION SEPARATELY.' IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT SECTION II OF AF FORM 220 WOULD BE COMPLETED TO SHOW THE EFFECTIVE DATE THE AIRMAN WAS AUTHORIZED TO RATION SEPARATELY, AND THAT "IF THIS DATE IS BASED ON VERBAL ORDERS, CONFIRM SUCH ORDERS. NOTE: AUTHORITY TO RATION SEPARATELY CANNOT BE RETROACTIVE.'

WHILE IT APPEARS THAT COLONEL MCCAULLEY WOULD HAVE AUTHORIZED YOU TO RATION SEPARATELY HAD A PROPER REQUEST BEEN MADE AND SUBMITTED TO HIM FOR APPROVAL SINCE HE SAYS HE HAD MADE A DECISION TO PERMIT ALL NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICERS TO MESS SEPARATELY IF THEY SO DESIRED, IT IS SHOWN BY THE RECORD THAT SUCH APPROVAL WAS NOT CURRENTLY GIVEN IN YOUR CASE BECAUSE AIRMAN MUNSON NEVER PRESENTED THE APPROPRIATE FORMS TO COLONEL MCCAULLEY FOR APPROVAL. NOT ALL NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICERS WISH TO MESS SEPARATELY AND UNTIL YOUR DESIRE IN THIS MATTER WAS COMMUNICATED TO COLONEL MCCAULLEY HE COULD TAKE NO ACTION IN YOUR CASE. IN THE ABSENCE OF A PROPER AUTHORIZATION TO MESS SEPARATELY, WE ARE WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO ALLOW YOUR CLAIM. NO EFFECT MAY BE GIVEN THE ATTEMPT TO SUPPLY SUCH AUTHORIZATION BY MEANS OF CONFIRMING VERBAL ORDERS SINCE THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT SUCH ORDERS ACTUALLY WERE ISSUED. COLONEL MCCAULLEY COULD NOT CONFIRM NONEXISTENT VERBAL ORDERS. A MERE INTENTION TO APPROVE SEPARATE RATIONS IN CASES SUCH AS YOURS CANNOT SUBSTITUTE FOR THE ACTUAL APPROVAL REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE PAYMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS.