B-156396, OCT. 7, 1965

B-156396, OCT. 7, 1965

TO LIEUTENANT COMMANDER JOHN E. TUCKER, USN, 596284:

WE HAVE YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1965, ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF OUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1965, B-156396, AND REQUESTING A FURTHER REVIEW OF YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND OF $240.71, REPRESENTING EXCESS COSTS COLLECTED FROM YOU INCIDENT TO THE SHIPMENT OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS FROM RISING SUN, MARYLAND, TO SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, UPON PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION. VIEW OF YOUR LETTER THE HONORABLE BOB WILSON, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, HAS AGAIN MADE INQUIRY RELATIVE TO THIS MATTER.

YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND OF $240.71, WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 25, 1965. IN DECISION OF JUNE 8, 1965, B-156396, WE EXPLAINED TO YOU IN DETAIL WHY YOUR CLAIM MAY NOT BE ALLOWED. WE POINTED OUT THAT ON THE RECORD BEFORE US WE COULD NOT CONCLUDE THAT THE WEIGHT CERTIFICATE OF JULY 23, 1963, SIGNED BY A PUBLIC WEIGHMASTER AND SUPPORTING THE CARRIER'S CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR EFFECTS WAS IN ERROR. WE ALSO ADVISED YOU THAT BUSANDA INSTRUCTION 4050.51, HI3, DATED AUGUST 22, 1963, WHICH YOU BELIEVED SERVED AS AUTHORITY FOR AN AUTOMATIC REWEIGH OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS, DID NOT AFFORD A BASIS FOR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM. BY DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1965, B 156396, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 6, 1965, PROTESTING THE DECISION OF JUNE 8, 1965, YOU WERE ADVISED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT AUTHORIZED SHIPPING WEIGHTS HAVE BEEN EXCEEDED IN THE SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS, AND THE EXCESS COSTS INVOLVED, ARE CONSIDERED TO BE MATTERS PRIMARILY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION, AND THAT WE ARE WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO QUESTION AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION IN THAT REGARD IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SHOWING IT TO BE CLEARLY IN ERROR. ADDITIONALLY, WE POINTED OUT, IN EFFECT, THAT IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC STATUTORY PROVISIONS SO PROVIDING, THE UNITED STATES IS NOT LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENT ACTIONS OF ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, OR EMPLOYEES, EVEN THOUGH COMMITTED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES, AND, HENCE, THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENT FOR A REWEIGH OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS AFFORDED NO BASIS FOR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM.

YOU HAVE FURNISHED NO INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE IN YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1965, NOT PREVIOUSLY AVAILABLE TO US. RATHER, YOU REITERATE THAT UPON ADVICE OF THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS OFFICE, MARE ISLAND, VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA, YOU WROTE TO THE NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING A REWEIGH OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS. AS YOU WERE PREVIOUSLY ADVISED, THAT CENTER HAS DENIED RECEIPT OF ANY REQUEST FROM YOU FOR A REWEIGH OF THE SHIPMENT. HOWEVER, AS INDICATED IN OUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1965, IF IT WERE ESTABLISHED THAT THE CENTER HAD RECEIVED YOUR REQUEST AND THROUGH NEGLIGENCE, OVERSIGHT OR OTHERWISE, FAILED TO REWEIGH YOUR SHIPMENT, ITS FAILURE TO ACT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD NOT SERVE AS A LEGAL BASIS FOR ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM.

IN VIEW OF OUR DECISIONS IN YOUR CASE, YOU ASK WHAT RECOURSE WAS AVAILABLE TO YOU TO PROTECT AGAINST A POSSIBLE CARRIER'S OVERCHARGE. ARE NOT ABLE TO ADVISE YOU IN THAT REGARD. SUCH MATTERS ARE PRIMARILY THE CONCERN OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS AND IF YOU BELIEVE THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS RELATING TO PAYMENT TO THE CARRIER OF CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTING HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS DO NOT ADEQUATELY SERVE THEIR PURPOSE, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT YOU CONTACT SUCH OFFICIALS. WE, OF COURSE, ARE REQUIRED TO APPLY THE GOVERNING LAWS AND REGULATIONS TO THE FACTS AS SHOWN IN THE RECORD.

SINCE YOUR LETTER CONTAINS NO NEW OR MATERIAL INFORMATION NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED BY US, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ANY DIFFERENT ACTION BY US ON YOUR CLAIM.