B-158586, MAR. 29, 1966

B-158586, MAR. 29, 1966

TO MR. KENNETH WILLIAMS:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 10, 1966, IN EFFECT REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF SETTLEMENT DATED JANUARY 28, 1966, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION FOR YOUR DEPENDENT WIFE FROM FRANKFURT, GERMANY, TO NEW YORK, NEW YORK, ON JULY 11, 1964, INCIDENT TO YOUR SERVICE IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY.

BY SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 162 DATED JUNE 25, 1964, HEADQUARTERS, 3D ARMORED DIVISION (SPEARHEAD), APO 39, YOU WERE ASSIGNED TO FORT HAMILTON, NEW YORK, FOR SEPARATION FROM THE ARMY AND DIRECTED TO REPORT NOT LATER THAN JULY 10, 1964, TO THE PORT OF EMBARKATION AT BREMERHAVEN, GERMANY, FOR OVERSEAS TRANSPORTATION ABOARD THE U.S.N.S.ROSE. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOUR WIFE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED CONCURRENT TRAVEL WITH YOU TO THE UNITED STATES, AND SHE TRAVELED FROM FRANKFURT, GERMANY, TO NEW YORK, NEW YORK, ON PAN AMERICAN AIRWAYS SYSTEM AT A COST OF $190. THE ARMY REIMBURSED YOU $116 OF THIS AMOUNT AS REPRESENTING THE COST INVOLVED HAD YOUR WIFE RETURNED BY MILITARY AIR TRANSPORT SERVICE BUT YOU CLAIM THAT YOU SHOULD BE FULLY REIMBURSED FOR THE COMMERCIAL COST OF HER TRANSPORTATION TO THE UNITED STATES SINCE YOU WERE UNABLE TO OBTAIN ORDERS FOR HER TO RETURN BY MILITARY AIR TRANSPORT SERVICE.

SECTION 406 OF TITLE 37, U.S.C. PROVIDES THAT SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARIES CONCERNED, A MEMBER OF A UNIFORMED SERVICE WHO IS ORDERED TO MAKE A CHANGE OF PERMANENT STATION IS ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION FOR HIS DEPENDENTS OR REIMBURSEMENT THEREFOR. PARAGRAPH M7002-LB OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO THIS AUTHORITY, PROVIDES, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS NOT MATERIAL IN YOUR CASE, THAT FOR TRANSOCEANIC TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS TO, FROM, OR BETWEEN AREAS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES, GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT OR VESSELS WILL BE UTILIZED IF AVAILABLE, AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE ANY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION THE USE OF WHICH WOULD NOT INVOLVE A DELAY OF MORE THAN 30 DAYS IS AVAILABLE TRANSPORTATION. CONSEQUENTLY, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY TO REPAY THE ACTUAL COSTS OF COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION USED IN CASES WHERE GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE FOR THE DEPENDENTS' TRAVEL. HOWEVER, WE HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT IN CASES WHERE DEPENDENTS ARE AUTHORIZED AS DISTINGUISHED FROM SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO TRAVEL BY GOVERNMENT CONVEYANCE WHICH IS AVAILABLE, BUT USE COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION FOR TRANSOCEANIC TRAVEL AT PERSONAL EXPENSE, THE MEMBER MAY BE REIMBURSED FOR THE COST OF SUCH TRAVEL ON THE BASIS OF THE STANDARD PRICES WHICH THE SPONSORING SERVICE WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PAY TO THE MILITARY AIR TRANSPORT SERVICE OR THE MILITARY SEA TRANSPORTATION SERVICE HAD THE TRAVEL BEEN BY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION. SEE 40 COMP. GEN. 482.

YOU STATE THAT YOU WERE UNABLE TO OBTAIN A SET OF SHIPPING ORDERS FOR YOUR WIFE. SINCE IT WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY REPORTED THAT CONCURRENT TRAVEL FROM GERMANY WAS NOT AUTHORIZED FOR HER IT IS ASSUMED THAT YOU HAD REQUESTED CONCURRENT TRANSPORTATION FOR HER USE.

IN A REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 1965, FROM THE CHIEF, PASSENGER BRANCH, TRANSPORTATION MOVEMENTS DIVISION, DIRECTORATE OF TRANSPORTATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, RELATIVE TO YOUR CLAIM, IT WAS STATED THAT GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION WAS AVAILABLE FOR QUALIFIED DEPENDENTS' TRAVEL FROM GERMANY TO THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, AND THAT FOR THAT PURPOSE THE MILITARY AIR TRANSPORT SERVICE OPERATES REGULARLY SCHEDULED FLIGHTS FROM FRANKFURT, GERMANY, TO MCGUIRE AIR FORCE BASE, NEW JERSEY, AND THE MILITARY SEA TRANSPORTATION SERVICE MAINTAINS REGULAR SAILINGS FROM BREMERHAVEN, GERMANY, TO NEW YORK, NEW YORK. WHILE YOUR WIFE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED CONCURRENT TRAVEL WHEN YOU RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES, IT MUST BE PRESUMED, IN VIEW OF SUCH REPORT, THAT SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN FURNISHED GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION IN DUE COURSE HAD PROPER APPLICATION THEREFOR BEEN MADE AND HAD SHE AWAITED AUTHORIZATION FOR IT RATHER THAN TRAVELING TO THE UNITED STATES BY PAN AMERICAN AIRWAYS SYSTEM. SINCE YOU WERE PAID THE AMOUNT IT WOULD HAVE COST THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY IF YOUR WIFE HAD TRAVELED BY MILITARY AIR TRANSPORT SERVICE, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE CLEARLY SHOWING THAT YOUR WIFE WAS DENIED THE USE OF ALL GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE HAD PROPER APPLICATION THEREFOR BEEN MADE, IT MUST BE CONSIDERED THAT NO FURTHER REIMBURSEMENT IS DUE YOU.

ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF JANUARY 28, 1966, DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM, WAS CORRECT AND IS SUSTAINED.