B-164095, JUN. 25, 1970
Highlights
YOUR CLAIM WAS THE SUBJECT OF DECISION B-164095 OF MAY 16. YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WERE SHIPPED INCIDENT TO ORDERS DATED APRIL 6. YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WERE SHIPPED FROM TAIWAN TO NON-TEMPORARY STORAGE IN OAKLAND. A FOURTH LOT WAS CONTINUED IN NON-TEMPORARY STORAGE IN NEW ORLEANS. WE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT AFTER THESE SHIPMENTS WERE UNPACKED YOU HAD THEM REWEIGHED AT YOUR EXPENSE AND YOUR CONTENTION THAT SINCE THE NET WEIGHT OF SHIPMENT NO. 2 WAS 3. 460 POUNDS AND THE NET WEIGHT OF SHIPMENT NO. 3 WAS 3. EXCESSIVE PACKING AND CRATING WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EXCESS WEIGHT CHARGED TO YOU. WE FURTHER SAID THAT ALL THE EVIDENCE IN YOUR CLAIM INCLUDING THE REWEIGHING AFTER UNPACKING WAS CONSIDERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY AND THAT IT DID NOT RECOMMEND AN ADJUSTMENT IN THE PRESCRIBED ALLOWANCES.
B-164095, JUN. 25, 1970
TO CAPTAIN ALSTON M. BOYD:
YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 15, 1969, WITH ENCLOSURES, ADDRESSED TO THE NAVY DEPARTMENT, IN EFFECT REQUESTS FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY THIS OFFICE ON YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND OF THE AMOUNT COLLECTED FROM YOU AS THE COST OF SHIPPING AN EXCESS WEIGHT OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS. YOUR CLAIM WAS THE SUBJECT OF DECISION B-164095 OF MAY 16, 1968.
YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WERE SHIPPED INCIDENT TO ORDERS DATED APRIL 6, 1960, WHICH DETACHED YOU FROM DUTY IN TAIWAN, RELIEVED YOU FROM ALL ACTIVE DUTY EFFECTIVE JUNE 30 AND TRANSFERRED YOU TO THE RETIRED LIST OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY ON JULY 1, 1960. YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WERE SHIPPED FROM TAIWAN TO NON-TEMPORARY STORAGE IN OAKLAND, IN THREE LOTS BY SEA VAN. A FOURTH LOT WAS CONTINUED IN NON-TEMPORARY STORAGE IN NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA. SINCE YOU EXCEEDED YOUR AUTHORIZED WEIGHT ALLOWANCE AS SET FORTH IN THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS ON THE THIRD AND FOURTH LOTS, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY COMPUTED THE EXCESS COST AS $838.14.
IN THE DECISION OF MAY 16, 1968, WE MENTIONED THAT SHIPMENT NO. 2 WEIGHED 4,100 POUNDS, THAT SHIPMENT NO. 3 WEIGHED 3,820 POUNDS AND THAT ALLOWING A 5% DEDUCTION FOR PACKING AND CRATING AS AUTHORIZED BY THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS RESULTED IN NET WEIGHTS OF 3,895 POUNDS AND 3,629 POUNDS, RESPECTIVELY. WE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT AFTER THESE SHIPMENTS WERE UNPACKED YOU HAD THEM REWEIGHED AT YOUR EXPENSE AND YOUR CONTENTION THAT SINCE THE NET WEIGHT OF SHIPMENT NO. 2 WAS 3,460 POUNDS AND THE NET WEIGHT OF SHIPMENT NO. 3 WAS 3,420 POUNDS, AS SHOWN BY THAT REWEIGH, EXCESSIVE PACKING AND CRATING WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EXCESS WEIGHT CHARGED TO YOU. WE SAID THAT WHILE THE SERVICES HAD AUTHORITY TO DEVIATE FROM THE ALLOWANCES SET FORTH IN THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS BECAUSE OF EXCESS TARE WEIGHT, THIS OFFICE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO.
WE FURTHER SAID THAT ALL THE EVIDENCE IN YOUR CLAIM INCLUDING THE REWEIGHING AFTER UNPACKING WAS CONSIDERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY AND THAT IT DID NOT RECOMMEND AN ADJUSTMENT IN THE PRESCRIBED ALLOWANCES. YOU WERE ADVISED, THEREFORE, THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE BY THIS OFFICE OF ANY PORTION OF YOUR CLAIM BASED ON YOUR ALLEGATION OF OVERPACKING. WE DID, HOWEVER, ALLOW YOU $201.08 BECAUSE OF THE INCLUSION OF PROFESSIONAL BOOKS.
YOUR PRESENT LETTER IS ACCOMPANIED BY COPIES OF THE WEIGHT CERTIFICATES PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED COVERING REWEIGHING SHIPMENTS NOS. 2 AND 3 AFTER UNPACKING, AND YOU AGAIN CONTEND, IN EFFECT, THAT THE EXCESS COST RESULTED FROM EXCESS PACKING. THIS IS THE SAME EVIDENCE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY AND IT AGAIN WAS FORWARDED HERE WITHOUT FAVORABLE ACTION.
SINCE YOUR LETTER DOES NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED AND SINCE THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM BY THIS OFFICE, THE DECISION OF MAY 16, 1968, IS AFFIRMED ..END