B-145294, MAR. 30, 1961
Highlights
WILL BE CONSIDERED AS A REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS OFFICE DATED MARCH 4. YOU WERE ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY EFFECTIVE APRIL 16. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN THE CASE OF CALIFANO V. IN THAT CASE THE COURT HELD THAT A TRAVEL STATUS CANNOT EXIST FOR A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES IN THE ABSENCE OF A DESIGNATED POST OF DUTY AWAY FROM WHICH TRAVEL IS PERFORMED AND THAT ORDERS DIRECTING THE MEMBER IN THAT CASE TO PROCEED FROM HIS HOME TO A STATION FOR FOUR MONTHS' INDOCTRINATION AND FURTHER ASSIGNMENT TO DUTY DID NOT PLACE HIM IN A TRAVEL STATUS AT THAT STATION SINCE IT WAS THE ONLY POST OF DUTY HE HAD AT THAT TIME. AS YOU WERE ADVISED IN THE SETTLEMENT OF MARCH 4.
B-145294, MAR. 30, 1961
TO FIRST LIEUTENANT RUDOLPH E. CLARK:
YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 7, 1961, PRESENTING CLAIM FOR PER DIEM FOR TEMPORARY DUTY FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 22 TO JUNE 18, 1959, WILL BE CONSIDERED AS A REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS OFFICE DATED MARCH 4, 1960, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR PER DIEM FOR THE SAME PERIOD.
BY PARAGRAPH 19, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 20, DATED JANUARY 29, 1959, YOU WERE ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY EFFECTIVE APRIL 16, 1959, AND DIRECTED TO PROCEED FROM YOUR HOME OR TEMPORARY ADDRESS TO UNITED STATES ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE SCHOOL, BROOKS ARMY MEDICAL CENTER, FORT SAM HOUSTON, TEXAS, FOR TEMPORARY DUTY PENDING FURTHER ORDERS TO ATTEND A COURSE OF INSTRUCTION. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN THE CASE OF CALIFANO V. UNITED STATES, CT.CL.NO. 86-58, DECIDED MARCH 4, 1959. IN THAT CASE THE COURT HELD THAT A TRAVEL STATUS CANNOT EXIST FOR A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES IN THE ABSENCE OF A DESIGNATED POST OF DUTY AWAY FROM WHICH TRAVEL IS PERFORMED AND THAT ORDERS DIRECTING THE MEMBER IN THAT CASE TO PROCEED FROM HIS HOME TO A STATION FOR FOUR MONTHS' INDOCTRINATION AND FURTHER ASSIGNMENT TO DUTY DID NOT PLACE HIM IN A TRAVEL STATUS AT THAT STATION SINCE IT WAS THE ONLY POST OF DUTY HE HAD AT THAT TIME. AS YOU WERE ADVISED IN THE SETTLEMENT OF MARCH 4, 1960, UNDER THE CONTROLLING LAWS AND REGULATIONS PER DIEM IS AUTHORIZED ONLY WHEN A MEMBER IS IN A TRAVEL STATUS AWAY FROM A PERMANENT DUTY STATION, AND SINCE UNDER THE RULE OF THE CALIFANO CASE, YOU WERE NOT AWAY FROM A PERMANENT STATION AND, THEREFORE, YOU WERE NOT IN A TRAVEL STATUS, PER DIEM NOW CANNOT BE PAID TO YOU.
IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU SAY THAT MANY OF YOUR FELLOW OFFICERS AT FORT SAM HOUSTON SUBMITTING IDENTICAL CLAIMS HAVE BEEN PAID PER DIEM. ALSO, YOU SAY YOU PAID A SURCHARGE FOR MEALS AT FORT SAM HOUSTON BECAUSE YOU WERE CONSIDERED TO BE IN A PER DIEM STATUS.
YOUR CLAIM IS SIMILAR TO THAT CONSIDERED IN DECISION B-143279, DATED JULY 27, 1960, COPY ENCLOSED. SINCE FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THAT DECISION THERE IS NO BASIS FOR PAYMENT OF YOUR CLAIM, THE SETTLEMENT OF MARCH 4, 1960, WAS CORRECT AND IS SUSTAINED.
PRESUMABLY, THE OFFICERS REFERRED TO BY YOU AS HAVING BEEN PAID PER DIEM FOR TEMPORARY DUTY SIMILAR TO THAT PERFORMED BY YOU WERE PAID ADMINISTRATIVELY PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, 1959. SEE 39 COMP. GEN. 506. WHILE SUCH PAYMENTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO RECOUPMENT, THEY AFFORD NO BASIS UPON WHICH WE MAY AUTHORIZE SIMILAR PAYMENTS AFTER THAT DATE.
WITH RESPECT TO YOUR ALLEGATION THAT YOU WERE REQUIRED TO PAY A SURCHARGE FOR MEALS, IF YOU ARE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE AMOUNT OF THE SURCHARGE PER MEAL FOR THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, THE MATTER WILL BE GIVEN FURTHER CONSIDERATION.