B-171093, DEC. 11, 1970

B-171093: Dec 11, 1970

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

WHERE AN OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO REPORT TO SATTAHIP. ORDERS WERE ORALLY CHANGED EN ROUTE DIRECTING HIM TO REPORT TO THE OFFICE OF THAILAND REPRESENTATIVE. PER DIEM WAS PROPERLY COMPUTED AT PERMANENT STATION RATE EVEN THOUGH THE OFFICE HAD NOT YET FORMALLY COME INTO EXISTANCE. EVEN IF THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED FOR TEMPORARY DUTY AT BANGKOK. JONES: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 4. YOU WERE DIRECTED WHEN DETACHED IN APRIL OR MAY FROM DUTY AT THE MARINE CORPS SUPPLY CENTER. THAT ORDER WAS CANCELLED BY BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL ORDER NO. 169819(1) WHICH DIRECTED YOU TO PROCEED TO PEARL HARBOR. FOR TEMPORARY DUTY OF ABOUT THREE DAYS UPON COMPLETION OF WHICH YOU WERE TO PROCEED TO SATTAHIP.

B-171093, DEC. 11, 1970

TEMPORARY DUTY STATION - PER DIEM DENIAL OF CLAIM FOR $540 THE DIFFERENCE DUE TO COMPUTING PER DIEM AT $9 PER DAY COST OF LIVING AND HOUSING ALLOWANCE (PERMANENT STATION RATE), GRANTED IN PREVIOUS SETTLEMENT RATHER THAN $18 PER DAY (TEMPORARY STATION RATE) FOR PERIOD SPENT IN BANGKOK INCIDENT TO DETACHMENT FROM DUTY AT THE MARINE CORPS SUPPLY CENTER, BARSTOW, CALIF., AND ASSIGNMENT TO DUTY IN THAILAND. WHERE AN OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO REPORT TO SATTAHIP, THAILAND, BUT ORDERS WERE ORALLY CHANGED EN ROUTE DIRECTING HIM TO REPORT TO THE OFFICE OF THAILAND REPRESENTATIVE, COMMANDER IN CHIEF PACIFIC FLEET, BANGKOK, PER DIEM WAS PROPERLY COMPUTED AT PERMANENT STATION RATE EVEN THOUGH THE OFFICE HAD NOT YET FORMALLY COME INTO EXISTANCE. EVEN IF THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED FOR TEMPORARY DUTY AT BANGKOK, SINCE WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE, BANGKOK BECAME HIS PERMANENT STATION, REIMBURSEMENT FOR PER DIEM UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN SET AT THE PERMANENT STATION RATE BY THE GAO.

TO COMMANDER DARRELL E. JONES:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1970, REQUESTING REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT OF JULY 2, 1970, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR PER DIEM FOR THE PERIOD MAY 20 TO JULY 19, 1966.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT BY BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL ORDER NO. 169819 OF MARCH 11, 1966, YOU WERE DIRECTED WHEN DETACHED IN APRIL OR MAY FROM DUTY AT THE MARINE CORPS SUPPLY CENTER, BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA, TO REPORT TO THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS CONTRACTS THAILAND, FOR TEMPORARY DUTY AND ASSIGNMENT TO DUTY AT SUCH PLACE OR PLACES IN THAILAND AS MAY BE DESIGNATED. THAT ORDER WAS CANCELLED BY BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL ORDER NO. 169819(1) WHICH DIRECTED YOU TO PROCEED TO PEARL HARBOR, HAWAII, FOR TEMPORARY DUTY OF ABOUT THREE DAYS UPON COMPLETION OF WHICH YOU WERE TO PROCEED TO SATTAHIP, THAILAND "REPLTR CINCPACFLT" FOR DUTY. YOU SAY THAT WHILE AT PEARL HARBOR YOU WERE VERBALLY INFORMED THAT YOU WOULD BE LOCATED IN BANGKOK, THAILAND, AND SHOULD NOT PROCEED TO SATTAHIP AS REQUIRED BY YOUR ORDERS. APPARENTLY, YOU WERE OFFICIALLY INFORMED AT THAT TIME THAT BANGKOK WOULD BE YOUR PERMANENT STATION.

FIRST ENDORSEMENT ON YOUR ORDERS SHOWS THAT UPON YOUR ARRIVAL IN BANGKOK YOU REPORTED TO THE THAILAND REPRESENTATIVE, COMMANDER IN CHIEF, U.S. PACIFIC FLEET, FOR DUTY ON MAY 20, 1966. THIS CHANGE IN REPORTING PLACE WAS OFFICIALLY EFFECTED BY BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL ORDER NO. 00135 OF JULY 1966, PUBLISHED BY THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, U.S. PACIFIC FLEET, ON JULY 27, 1966.

THAT ORDER DETACHED YOU FROM DUTY AT SATTAHIP AND DIRECTED YOU TO REPORT TO THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, PACIFIC FLEET REPRESENTATIVE, THAILAND, AT BANGKOK FOR DUTY. FIRST ENDORSEMENT ON THAT ORDER SHOWS THAT YOU REPORTED FOR DUTY ON THE STAFF OF THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, U.S. PACIFIC FLEET REPRESENTATIVE, THAILAND, AT BANGKOK ON JULY 19, 1966, AND THAT YOU HAD REPORTED TO THAT ACTIVITY "AD INTERIM" ON MAY 20, 1966, UNDER THE ORDERS OF APRIL 1966, WHICH ERRONEOUSLY DIRECTED YOU TO REPORT TO SATTAHIP FOR DUTY.

IN PRESENTING YOUR CLAIM FOR PER DIEM FOR THE PERIOD MAY 20 TO JULY 19, 1966, YOU SAID YOU NEVER PROCEEDED TO SATTAHIP OTHER THAN ON OCCASIONAL ONE-DAY TRIPS TO OBSERVE CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES. YOU SAID YOU HAD BEEN PAID $9 PER DAY AS COST OF LIVING AND HOUSING ALLOWANCES (PERMANENT STATION ALLOWANCES) AT BANGKOK FOR THE PERIOD MAY 29 TO JULY 19, 1966, AND THAT YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE ENTITLED TO TEMPORARY DUTY PER DIEM AT THE RATE OF $18 PER DAY, OR AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF $540. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY THE SETTLEMENT MENTIONED ABOVE FOR THE REASON THAT PER DIEM IS PAYABLE FOR PERIODS OF TRAVEL AND/OR TEMPORARY DUTY PERFORMED UNDER COMPETENT ORDERS AND THAT THE ORDERS IN YOUR CASE INDICATE YOUR ASSIGNMENT TO DUTY IN THAILAND WAS NOT A TEMPORARY DUTY ASSIGNMENT.

IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU CONTEND THAT THE APRIL 1966 ORDERS ASSIGNED YOU TO SATTAHIP NOT BANGKOK; THAT THE PERMANENT ASSIGNMENT, THEREFORE, WAS NOT BANGKOK, AND THAT TEMPORARY DUTY ORDERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO PROVIDE FOR YOUR STAY IN BANGKOK UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE OFFICE OF THAILAND REPRESENTATIVE, COMMANDER IN CHIEF PACIFIC FLEET, FORMALLY CAME INTO EXISTENCE IN JULY 1966. YOU EXPRESS THE BELIEF THAT YOUR SITUATION IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THAT OF THREE OTHER OFFICERS WHO EVENTUALLY CONSTITUTED THE OFFICER COMPLEMENT OF THE ACTIVITY WHEN IT WAS FORMALLY ESTABLISHED IN JULY 1966.

YOU SAY THOSE OFFICERS WERE ON PERMANENT ASSIGNMENT TO PEARL HARBOR AND UNDER TEMPORARY DUTY ORDERS TO BANGKOK, WHEREAS YOUR PERMANENT ASSIGNMENT WAS SATTAHIP AND, BY OVERSIGHT, ORDERS FOR TEMPORARY DUTY AT BANGKOK WERE NEVER ISSUED TO YOU. YOU SAY THEIR ORDERS WERE ISSUED AFTER YOU ARRIVED IN THAILAND AND IT WAS REALIZED THAT UNTIL THE OFFICE OF THAILAND REPRESENTATIVE, COMMANDER IN CHIEF PACIFIC FLEET, WAS OFFICIALLY ESTABLISHED, NO ONE COULD BE ORDERED THERE ON PERMANENT DUTY, ONLY TEMPORARY DUTY.

SECTION 404(A) OF TITLE 37, U.S. CODE, PROVIDES THAT UNDER REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARIES CONCERNED, A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES IS ENTITLED TO TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED UPON CHANGE OF PERMANENT STATION, OR OTHERWISE, OR WHEN AWAY FROM HIS DESIGNATED POST OF DUTY. PARAGRAPH M3003-2A OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT THE TERM "TEMPORARY DUTY" MEANS DUTY AT ONE OR MORE LOCATIONS, OTHER THAN THE PERMANENT STATIONS, AT WHICH A MEMBER PERFORMS TEMPORARY DUTY UNDER ORDERS WHICH PROVIDE FOR FURTHER ASSIGNMENT TO A NEW PERMANENT STATION OR FOR RETURN TO THE OLD PERMANENT STATION UPON COMPLETION OF THE TEMPORARY DUTY.

IT LONG HAS BEEN THE VIEW OF THIS OFFICE THAT A MEMBER WHO, AFTER DETACHMENT FROM HIS OLD PERMANENT DUTY STATION, PERFORMS TEMPORARY DUTY AT HIS NEW PERMANENT STATION WHICH IS THEN HIS DESIGNATED POST OF DUTY IS NOT AWAY FROM HIS STATION AND IS NOT ENTITLED TO TEMPORARY DUTY ALLOWANCES. 37 COMP. GEN. 140 (1957) AND 38 COMP. GEN. 656 (1959). WHETHER AN ASSIGNMENT TO A PARTICULAR STATION IS TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT IS A QUESTION OF FACT AND IS FOR DETERMINATION FROM A CONSIDERATION OF THE ORDERS UNDER WHICH AN ASSIGNMENT IS MADE AND THE NATURE OF THE DUTY. 24 COMP. GEN. 667 (1945); 33 COMP. GEN. 98 (1953), AND 36 COMP. GEN. 757 (1957).

PARAGRAPH M1150-10A OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS DEFINES "PERMANENT DUTY STATION" AS THE POST OF DUTY OR OFFICIAL STATION TO WHICH A MEMBER IS ATTACHED FOR DUTY OTHER THAN TEMPORARY DUTY OR TEMPORARY ADDITIONAL DUTY, THE LIMITS OF WHICH WILL BE THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OR TOWN IN WHICH THE MEMBER IS STATIONED, BUT IF NOT STATIONED IN A CITY OR TOWN THE OFFICIAL STATION IS THE RESERVATION, STATION, OR ESTABLISHED AREA WITHIN WHICH THE DESIGNATED POST OF DUTY IS LOCATED.

PARAGRAPH M4209 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, RESTRICTS THE PAYMENT OF PER DIEM AT A TEMPORARY STATION AFTER RECEIPT OF ORDERS WHICH DESIGNATE THE TEMPORARY STATION AS THE NEW PERMANENT STATION UPON COMPLETION OF THE TEMPORARY DUTY. WHILE THE ORDERS IN YOUR CASE WERE NOT ISSUED UNTIL JULY, YOU HAD BEEN OFFICIALLY ADVISED OF THE CHANGE IN YOUR PERMANENT STATION PRIOR TO YOUR DEPARTURE FROM HAWAII AND, IN OUR OPINION, THE PRINCIPLE OF THE REGULATION IS APPLICABLE TO YOU. SEE 38 COMP. GEN. 698 (1959). SINCE YOU WERE CREDITED WITH PERMANENT STATION ALLOWANCES DURING THE PERIOD OF YOUR CLAIM THIS ALSO APPEARS TO BE THE VIEW OF THE NAVY AUTHORITIES.

THEREFORE, BANGKOK MUST BE REGARDED AS YOUR PERMANENT STATION AND IF, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR CASE, ORDERS HAD BEEN ISSUED DIRECTING YOU TO PERFORM TEMPORARY DUTY AT BANGKOK DURING THE PERIOD INVOLVED NO PER DIEM WOULD BE PAYABLE.

ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF JULY 2, 1970, WAS CORRECT AND IS SUSTAINED.

NEITHER THE ORDERS RELATING TO THE TEMPORARY DUTY OF CAPTAIN G. C. EVANS, USNR, LIEUTENANT COMMANDER J. J. PRUDENTI, SC, USN, AND LIEUTENANT D. GRAHAM, USN, NOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THEIR CASES ARE BEFORE US. IF, HOWEVER, THEY WERE PAID PER DIEM FOR TEMPORARY DUTY UNDER ORDERS WHICH DIRECTED THEM TO PROCEED FROM HAWAII TO BANGKOK FOR TEMPORARY DUTY UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS THOSE IN YOUR CASE SUCH PAYMENTS WERE ERRONEOUS AND WILL BE CONSIDERED IN THE AUDIT OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE DISBURSING OFFICER CONCERNED.