B-157864, NOV. 13, 1968
Highlights
PEPPE: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 10. WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DECISIONS OF MARCH 10. WHILE YOU WERE STATIONED AT DA NANG. BY WHICH YOU WERE ASSIGNED TO PERMANENT DUTY AT APO 143. YOU WERE SENT FROM APO 143 TO DA NANG (APO 137) WITH THE INTENTION THAT YOU SHOULD SERVE AS A RESIDENT AGENT ON A PERMANENT BASIS UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES NOT ANTICIPATING THAT AT THE SAME TIME THERE EXISTED A BASIC DUTY ASSIGNMENT AT SAIGON. INDICATE THAT SUCH WAS THE CASE. WAS DIRECTED WITH THE CLEAR INTENTION THAT YOUR DUTY ASSIGNMENT WAS THEN TO BE AT SAIGON WITH NO ANTICIPATED RETURN TO A BASIC DUTY ASSIGNMENT AT DA NANG. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS HELD IN THE DECISION OF MARCH 10.
B-157864, NOV. 13, 1968
TO MR. RICHARD R. PEPPE:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 10, 1968, REQUESTING THAT YOUR CLAIM FOR PER DIEM WHILE SERVING WITH THE ARMED FORCES IN VIETNAM, WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DECISIONS OF MARCH 10, 1966, AND APRIL 26, 1966, B-157864, BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE PERIOD AUGUST 12, 1963, TO NOVEMBER 5, 1963, WHILE YOU WERE STATIONED AT DA NANG.
YOU REFER IN YOUR LETTER TO OUR DECISION OF MARCH 10, 1966, AND REQUEST FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS ASPECTS OF YOUR ASSIGNMENTS IN VIETNAM INVOLVING THE PERFORMANCE OF ASSIGNED DUTIES BOTH AT SAIGON AND DA NANG IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR NEW CLAIM.
THE RECORD IN YOUR CASE SHOWS THAT WHILE UNDER ORDERS OF MAY 3, 1963, BY WHICH YOU WERE ASSIGNED TO PERMANENT DUTY AT APO 143, LOCATED AT SAIGON, YOU WERE SENT FROM APO 143 TO DA NANG (APO 137) WITH THE INTENTION THAT YOU SHOULD SERVE AS A RESIDENT AGENT ON A PERMANENT BASIS UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES NOT ANTICIPATING THAT AT THE SAME TIME THERE EXISTED A BASIC DUTY ASSIGNMENT AT SAIGON. YOUR ORDERS OF JULY 15 AND SEPTEMBER 25, 1963, INDICATE THAT SUCH WAS THE CASE. THE RECORD ALSO INDICATES THAT YOUR RETURN TO SAIGON ON NOVEMBER 5, 1963, WAS DIRECTED WITH THE CLEAR INTENTION THAT YOUR DUTY ASSIGNMENT WAS THEN TO BE AT SAIGON WITH NO ANTICIPATED RETURN TO A BASIC DUTY ASSIGNMENT AT DA NANG.
IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS HELD IN THE DECISION OF MARCH 10, 1966, THAT DURING THE PERIODS YOU WERE AT SAIGON AND DA NANG YOU WERE IN FACT AT YOUR DESIGNATED POSTS OF DUTY WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE LAW AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING ENTITLEMENT TO TRAVEL ALLOWANCES. IN SUPPORT OF THAT VIEW IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT YOUR PAY RECORDS, COVERING PERIODS WHILE YOU WERE AT SAIGON AND DA NANG, SHOW THAT YOU WERE CREDITED WITH BASIC QUARTERS AND COST OF LIVING ALLOWANCES -- ALLOWANCES AUTHORIZED INCIDENT TO THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY AT THE RECIPIENT'S DESIGNATED POST OF DUTY -- WHILE AT EACH OF THE STATIONS. SUCH FACT, IT WAS STATED, REFLECTED ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS, MADE CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES, THAT SUCH DUTIES WERE PERFORMED IN EACH INSTANCE AT YOUR DESIGNATED POST OF DUTY, AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT, FROM THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY YOU IN YOUR CLAIM, IT WAS NOT CLEAR WHETHER YOU INTENDED THE CLAIM TO COVER THE PERIOD OF YOUR ASSIGNMENT WHILE AT SAIGON OR THE PERIOD WHILE AT DA NANG.
HENCE, CAREFUL CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN THE QUESTION OF YOUR STATUS WHILE AT EACH OF THESE LOCATIONS. THE CONCLUSION WAS REACHED, AS INDICATED ABOVE, THAT UNDER THE FACTS SHOWN YOUR PERMANENT DUTY STATION WHILE AT SAIGON WAS AT SAIGON AND YOUR PERMANENT DUTY STATION WHILE YOU WERE AT DA NANG WAS AT DA NANG, AND THEREFORE THAT PER DIEM DID NOT ACCRUE IN YOUR FAVOR AT EITHER STATION. THAT CONCLUSION WAS AFFIRMED IN THE DECISION OF APRIL 26, 1966. THUS, FULL CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN THE MATTER NOW PRESENTED BY YOU AS AN AMENDED CLAIM.
THE MATTERS REFERRED TO IN YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 10, 1968, WHICH YOU REQUESTED BE CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR NEW CLAIM, PRESENT NO EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION NOT CONSIDERED IN THE PRIOR ACTIONS ON YOUR CASE, AND CONSEQUENTLY PROVIDE NO BASIS FOR A CONCLUSION CONTRARY TO THAT REACHED IN THE CITED DECISIONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM IS AGAIN SUSTAINED.