B-160107, NOV. 25, 1966
Highlights
IN FURTHER REGARD TO YOUR CLAIM FOR QUARTERS ALLOWANCE WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 7. WHICH APPEARS TO BE DESIGNED TO FOCUS ATTENTION UPON THOSE ELEMENTS OF THE REGULATIONS WHICH YOU FEEL ARE CONTROLLING IN DETERMINING WHETHER YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A QUARTERS ALLOWANCE. IF A COURT FINDS SUCH A DECISION REASONABLY IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. IT GENERALLY WILL UPHOLD THE CONCLUSION EVEN THOUGH ON THE EVIDENCE THE COURT MIGHT HAVE REACHED A DIFFERENT ONE. - DOES NOT LEND INEVITABLY TO THE CONCLUSION THAT YOU WERE "TEMPORARILY IN THE FOREIGN AREA FOR TRAVEL OR FORMAL STUDY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THOSE WORDS AS USED IN THE REGULATION AND. WE MAY NOT SAY THAT THE DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WAS ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS.
B-160107, NOV. 25, 1966
TO MRS. BARBARA E. MEYER-WENDT:
WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 21, 1966, IN FURTHER REGARD TO YOUR CLAIM FOR QUARTERS ALLOWANCE WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 7, 1966, B-160107, TO YOU.
YOUR LETTER RELATES THE FACTS OF WHAT WE UNDERSTAND TO BE A HYPOTHETICAL CASE SIMILAR TO YOUR OWN, WHICH APPEARS TO BE DESIGNED TO FOCUS ATTENTION UPON THOSE ELEMENTS OF THE REGULATIONS WHICH YOU FEEL ARE CONTROLLING IN DETERMINING WHETHER YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A QUARTERS ALLOWANCE.
WE BELIEVE THE ARGUMENT PRESENTED BY YOU ATTRIBUTES TOO BROAD A MEANING TO THE REGULATION QUOTED IN YOUR LETTER.
IN OUR CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CASE WE APPLIED A RULE FREQUENTLY RESORTED TO BY THE COURTS WHEN THEY REVIEW DISCRETIONARY ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS. IF A COURT FINDS SUCH A DECISION REASONABLY IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, IT GENERALLY WILL UPHOLD THE CONCLUSION EVEN THOUGH ON THE EVIDENCE THE COURT MIGHT HAVE REACHED A DIFFERENT ONE.
THE EVIDENCE IN YOUR CASE--- PARTICULARLY THAT DEVELOPED IN THE LATTER PART OF 1964--- DOES NOT LEND INEVITABLY TO THE CONCLUSION THAT YOU WERE "TEMPORARILY IN THE FOREIGN AREA FOR TRAVEL OR FORMAL STUDY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THOSE WORDS AS USED IN THE REGULATION AND, THEREFORE, WE MAY NOT SAY THAT THE DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WAS ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS. IT FOLLOWS THAT OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 7, 1966, MUST BE SUSTAINED.