B-165225, NOV. 1, 1968

B-165225: Nov 1, 1968

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

KUNTZ: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 13. THAT YOU WERE INDEBTED FOR THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE FROM PHILADELPHIA. NO ORDERS PERTAINING TO THE MATTER HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. YOU STATED THAT THE HOME PORT OF THE USS NEPTUNE (ARC-2) TO WHICH YOU WERE ASSIGNED. WAS CHANGED FROM PORTSMOUTH. YOU CHOSE TO MOVE YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM PORTSMOUTH TO PHILADELPHIA AND WERE PAID FOR THEIR TRAVEL PLUS DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE. YOU STATED FURTHER THAT YOU WERE ASSURED THAT THE TRANSPORTATION WAS AUTHORIZED INCIDENT TO CHANGE OF HOME PORT AND THAT YOUR DEPENDENTS WOULD BE ENTITLED TO MOVE FROM PHILADELPHIA ON SUBSEQUENT ORDERS. YOU WERE GIVEN A TRANSPORTATION REQUEST FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS' TRAVEL FROM PHILADELPHIA TO LOS ANGELES.

B-165225, NOV. 1, 1968

TO LIEUTENANT COMMANDER DAVID S. KUNTZ:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 13, 1968, REQUESTING REVIEW OF A DETERMINATION MADE BY THE COMPTROLLER OF THE NAVY JUNE 24, 1968, THAT YOU WERE INDEBTED FOR THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE FROM PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, TO LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, IN EXCESS OF TRANSPORTATION COSTS FROM SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, TO LOS ANGELES, INCIDENT TO THEIR TRAVEL UNDER ORDERS DATED NOVEMBER 29, 1967.

NO ORDERS PERTAINING TO THE MATTER HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. HOWEVER, IN A LETTER DATED APRIL 11, 1968, TO THE NAVY FINANCE CENTER, YOU STATED THAT THE HOME PORT OF THE USS NEPTUNE (ARC-2) TO WHICH YOU WERE ASSIGNED, WAS CHANGED FROM PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE, TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1967. INCIDENT THERETO, YOU CHOSE TO MOVE YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM PORTSMOUTH TO PHILADELPHIA AND WERE PAID FOR THEIR TRAVEL PLUS DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE. YOU STATED FURTHER THAT YOU WERE ASSURED THAT THE TRANSPORTATION WAS AUTHORIZED INCIDENT TO CHANGE OF HOME PORT AND THAT YOUR DEPENDENTS WOULD BE ENTITLED TO MOVE FROM PHILADELPHIA ON SUBSEQUENT ORDERS.

UPON SUBSEQUENT DETACHMENT FROM YOUR VESSEL AND REASSIGNMENT TO COMMANDER, SERVICE FORCE, U.S. PACIFIC FLEET, BY THE ORDERS DATED NOVEMBER 29, 1967, YOU WERE GIVEN A TRANSPORTATION REQUEST FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS' TRAVEL FROM PHILADELPHIA TO LOS ANGELES, PORT OF EMBARKATION TO HONOLULU, HAWAII. HOWEVER, UPON SUBMITTING A VOUCHER AT YOUR NEW STATION FOR PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL COSTS INVOLVED IN DEPENDENTS' TRAVEL, PAYMENT WAS DENIED ON THE BASIS THAT YOU WERE ENTITLED TO THEIR TRANSPORTATION ONLY FROM SAN FRANCISCO RATHER THAN FROM PHILADELPHIA AND THAT THE EXCESS TRANSPORTATION RECEIVED WAS GREATER THAN THE AMOUNTS OTHERWISE DUE ON YOUR CLAIM.

IN A LETTER DATED JUNE 24, 1968, TO THE NAVY FINANCE CENTER PERTAINING TO YOUR CLAIM, THE COMPTROLLER OF THE NAVY CITED PARAGRAPH M7008-2, JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, AS AUTHORITY FOR LIMITING ENTITLEMENT OF DEPENDENTS' TRANSPORTATION TO THE DISTANCE FROM SAN FRANCISCO, HOME PORT OF YOUR VESSEL TO LOS ANGELES, PORT OF EMBARKATION TO YOUR NEW OVERSEAS PERMANENT STATION. THE LETTER STATED FURTHER THAT THE AMOUNT FOUND TO BE DUE IN YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL EXPENSES PLUS DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE DUE YOU SHOULD BE USED TO OFFSET THE COST OF EXCESS TRANSPORTATION FURNISHED ON THE TRANSPORTATION REQUEST USED AND THAT COLLECTION OF THE REST OF THE EXCESS COST SHOULD BE MADE.

IN YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 13, 1968, REQUESTING OUR REVIEW OF THE INDICATED RULING, YOU CONTEND THAT YOU RELIED ON THE ADVICE GIVEN BY NAVAL AUTHORITIES AT THE TIME OF CHANGE IN HOME PORT, WHICH INCLUDED THE DISBURSING OFFICER OF THE VESSEL AT THAT TIME, THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS YOU WERE ENTITLED TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENTS TO PHILADELPHIA, AND FROM PHILADELPHIA TO YOUR NEXT DUTY STATION UPON SUBSEQUENT DETACHMENT FROM THAT VESSEL.

PARAGRAPH M7057, JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO 37 U.S.C. 406, PROVIDES THAT A MEMBER IN RECEIPT OF PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS (WHICH INCLUDES CHANGES IN HOME PORTS OF VESSELS AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH M7065 OF THE REGULATIONS) IS ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE FROM THE OLD STATION TO OTHER THAN THE NEW PERMANENT STATION NOT TO EXCEED THE ENTITLEMENT FROM THE OLD TO THE NEW STATION. PARAGRAPH M7008-2A OF THE REGULATIONS PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART THAT A MEMBER IS ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION OF HIS DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE FROM THE PLACE THE DEPENDENTS ARE LOCATED UPON THE MEMBER'S RECEIPT OF CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS TO THE PERMANENT DUTY STATION OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES, NOT TO EXCEED THE ENTITLEMENT FOR THEIR TRAVEL FROM THE OLD TO THE NEW PERMANENT DUTY STATION.

UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH M7057, A MEMBER MAY BE PAID FOR DEPENDENTS' TRAVEL TO A PLACE OTHER THAN THE NEW PERMANENT STATION OR THE NEW HOME PORT OF THE VESSEL TO WHICH ASSIGNED. HOWEVER, UPON PAYMENT FOR SUCH TRAVEL, HIS RIGHT IS EXHAUSTED AND NO FURTHER RIGHT TO DEPENDENT TRANSPORTATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE ACCRUES UNDER THAT CHANGE OF STATION. 38 COMP. GEN. 453. WHERE, UPON SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF STATION, THE DEPENDENTS TRAVEL FROM THAT PLACE TO THE MEMBER'S NEW DUTY STATION, HIS ENTITLEMENT TO DEPENDENTS' TRANSPORTATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE IS LIMITED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH M7008 2A OF THE JOIN TRAVEL REGULATIONS TO THE DISTANCE FROM THE OLD DUTY STATION TO THE NEW DUTY STATION. B-150749, MAY 16, 1963 (COPY ENCLOSED).

AT THE TIME OF THE CHANGE IN THE HOME PORT OF YOUR VESSEL, YOU CHOSE TO MOVE YOUR DEPENDENTS TO A LOCATION OTHER THAN THE NEW HOME PORT. HAVING MADE THAT CHOICE, YOUR ENTITLEMENT TO DEPENDENTS' TRANSPORTATION UNDER ORDERS OF NOVEMBER 29, 1967, WAS LIMITED TO THE DISTANCE FROM SAN FRANCISCO, WHICH WAS THE LOCATION OF THE HOME PORT OF THE VESSEL FROM WHICH YOU WERE DETACHED, TO LOS ANGELES, THE PORT OF EMBARKATION EN ROUTE TO YOUR NEW DUTY STATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE COMPTROLLER OF THE NAVY IN REQUIRING COLLECTION OF THE EXCESS COST TO THE GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENTS WAS PROPER.

THE FACT THAT YOUR CHOICE OF DEPENDENTS' DESTINATION INCIDENT TO THE CHANGE OF HOME PORT OF YOUR VESSEL MAY HAVE RESULTED FROM ADVICE BY NAVAL OFFICERS, INCLUDING THE DISBURSING OFFICER OF THAT VESSEL, DOES NOT, IN OUR OPINION AFFORD A LEGAL BASIS FOR REIMBURSEMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE EXCESS COST INVOLVED IN YOUR DEPENDENTS' TRANSPORTATION INCIDENT TO SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS. B 145711, JUNE 27, 1961 (COPY ENCLOSED).