A-16666, MAR. 7, 1969

A-16666, MAR. 7, 1969

TO COMMANDER ROY A. DARLING, USNR, RETIRED:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR RECENT LETTERS, AND ENCLOSURES, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, WASHINGTON, D.C., CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM PORT HUENEME, CALIFORNIA, TO BIG RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, DURING THE PERIOD JULY 21 TO 25, 1944, INCIDENT TO YOUR SERVICE IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY, WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DECISIONS OF AUGUST 15, 1967, AND OCTOBER 26, 1967, A- 16666, TO YOU.

PRESUMABLY YOUR LETTERS TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY WERE FORWARDED TO OUR OFFICE FOR CONSIDERATION SINCE WE HAD PREVIOUSLY ACTED ON THE CLAIM AND SECTIONS 71 AND 74 OF TITLE 31, U.S.C. PROVIDE THAT ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE SETTLED AND ADJUSTED IN THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE AND THAT SUCH SETTLEMENT SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE UPON THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT.

YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF YOUR DEPENDENTS' TRANSPORTATION, FIRST RECEIVED IN THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE IN DECEMBER 1963, WAS RETURNED TO YOU ON JANUARY 29, 1964, WITH A COPY OF THE BARRING ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, 54 STAT. 1061, SINCE IT ACCRUED IN 1945 AND OUR RECORDS DO NOT SHOW THAT YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY FILED A SIMILAR CLAIM IN OUR OFFICE. IT WAS EXPLAINED TO YOU IN THE DECISION OF AUGUST 15, 1967, THAT THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, EXPRESSLY BARS CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES COGNIZABLE BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE UNLESS THEY ARE RECEIVED IN OUR OFFICE WITHIN 10 FULL YEARS AFTER THE CLAIM FIRST ACCRUED. SINCE MORE THAN 10 FULL YEARS ELAPSED BETWEEN THE DATE YOUR CLAIM ACCRUED WHEN YOU RETIRED FROM THE U.S. NAVY ON DECEMBER 16, 1945, AND THE TIME IT WAS FIRST RECEIVED IN OUR OFFICE IN DECEMBER 1963, YOUR CLAIM IS LEGALLY BARRED AND WE HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO RETURN IT TO YOU AS PROVIDED BY LAW.

WITH REGARD TO YOUR RIGHTS IN THE MATTER, AS POINTED OUT IN OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 26, 1967, YOU WERE ADVISED BY THE BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL IN LETTER DATED MAY 25, 1950, THAT YOUR ORDERS DATED FEBRUARY 9 AND APRIL 19, 1944, EFFECTED A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FROM SOLOMONS, MARYLAND, TO GROPAC 11, THE PERMANENT LOCATION OF WHICH WAS OMITTED FROM THE ORDERS FOR REASONS OF SECURITY, AND THAT THE SUBSEQUENT MOVEMENT ORDER OF GROPAC 11 FROM PORT HUENEME DID NOT CONSTITUTE A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION WHICH WOULD CREATE A RIGHT TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS.

SINCE YOUR DEPENDENTS HAD BEEN MOVED TO PORT HUENEME, CALIFORNIA, AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE PURSUANT TO THOSE ORDERS, THAT MOVEMENT EXHAUSTED YOUR RIGHT TO TRANSPORTATION FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS UNDER YOUR ORDERS TO GROPAC 11 AND YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO THEIR TRANSPORTATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE FROM PORT HUENEME TO BIG RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, IN CONNECTION WITH THOSE ORDERS. THUS, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR THIS TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENTS EVEN IF YOUR CLAIM WAS NOT BARRED BY THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940.

YOUR RECENT LETTERS TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY PRESENT NO PERTINENT INFORMATION NOT CONSIDERED IN THE DECISIONS OF AUGUST 15, 1967, AND OCTOBER 26, 1967, TO YOU, AND CONSEQUENTLY PROVIDE NO BASIS FOR A CONCLUSION CONTRARY TO THAT REACHED IN THOSE DECISIONS.