B-157776, MAR. 22, 1966

B-157776: Mar 22, 1966

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Shirley Jones
(202) 512-8156
jonessa@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

L. DEAN BENNER: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 23. THIS MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR SETTLEMENTS DATED AUGUST 6 AND NOVEMBER 12. WAS DENIED FOR THE REASON THAT YOU CLAIMED ON THE BASIS THAT YOUR DEPENDENTS HAD TRAVELED FROM FORT LEWIS. YOU WERE ADVISED IN THE DECISION THAT A CLAIM INVOLVING A KNOWING MISREPRESENTATION OF FACT IS OF DOUBTFUL VALIDITY AND THAT IN SUCH CASES IT IS THE PRACTICE OF THIS OFFICE TO DENY PAYMENT AND LEAVE THE CLAIMANT TO HIS REMEDY IN THE COURTS. PAYMENT OF A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE ALSO WAS DENIED FOR THE REASON THAT THE ONLY RECOGNIZED MOVE OF YOUR DEPENDENTS WAS INCIDENT TO YOUR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY AND THE LAW SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT SUCH ALLOWANCE IS NOT PAYABLE IN CONNECTION WITH THE CHANGE OF STATION FROM LAST STATION TO HOME.

B-157776, MAR. 22, 1966

TO MR. L. DEAN BENNER:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 23, 1966, CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS AND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE, INCIDENT TO YOUR ARMY SERVICE AS AN ENLISTED MAN. THIS MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR SETTLEMENTS DATED AUGUST 6 AND NOVEMBER 12, 1965, AND OUR DECISION DATED NOVEMBER 5, 1965, B 157776.

YOUR CLAIM COVERED THE TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS FROM FORT LEWIS, WASHINGTON, TO KEY WEST, FLORIDA, AND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE, INCIDENT TO OVERSEAS MOVEMENT ORDER DATED JULY 14, 1964, AND FROM MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY, TO EVERETT, WASHINGTON, INCIDENT TO ORDERS DATED OCTOBER 28, 1964, EFFECTING YOUR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY. OUR DECISION ALLOWED YOU REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE LATTER TRAVEL ONLY. REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE TRAVEL INCIDENT TO THE ORDERS OF JULY 14, 1964, WAS DENIED FOR THE REASON THAT YOU CLAIMED ON THE BASIS THAT YOUR DEPENDENTS HAD TRAVELED FROM FORT LEWIS, WASHINGTON, TO KEY WEST, FLORIDA, WITH THE INTENT OF ESTABLISHING A BONA FIDE RESIDENCE, KNOWING THAT THEY HAD NOT TRAVELED TO KEY WEST BUT HAD ACTUALLY TRAVELED TO NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, A LESSER DISTANCE, WITH THE INTENTION OF FOLLOWING YOU TO YOUR OVERSEAS STATION. YOU WERE ADVISED IN THE DECISION THAT A CLAIM INVOLVING A KNOWING MISREPRESENTATION OF FACT IS OF DOUBTFUL VALIDITY AND THAT IN SUCH CASES IT IS THE PRACTICE OF THIS OFFICE TO DENY PAYMENT AND LEAVE THE CLAIMANT TO HIS REMEDY IN THE COURTS. PAYMENT OF A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE ALSO WAS DENIED FOR THE REASON THAT THE ONLY RECOGNIZED MOVE OF YOUR DEPENDENTS WAS INCIDENT TO YOUR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY AND THE LAW SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT SUCH ALLOWANCE IS NOT PAYABLE IN CONNECTION WITH THE CHANGE OF STATION FROM LAST STATION TO HOME.

IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU SAY YOU HAD ORIGINALLY PLANNED TO SEND YOUR DEPENDENTS TO KEY WEST INCIDENT TO THE OVERSEAS ORDERS; THAT DUE TO ILLNESS IN THE FAMILY YOUR WIFE DECIDED TO REMAIN IN NORFOLK, AND THAT AFTER YOUR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY AND RETURN TO YOUR HOME YOU MADE AN HONEST MISTAKE IN CLAIMING DEPENDENTS' TRAVEL TO KEY WEST. THEREFORE, YOU BELIEVE PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE FOR TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS TO NORFOLK.

WHILE, AS YOU SAY, YOU MAY HAVE MADE AN HONEST MISTAKE, THERE CAN BE LITTLE DOUBT THAT YOUR CLAIM FOR TRAVEL FROM FORT LEWIS TO KEY WEST INVOLVED A KNOWING MISREPRESENTATION OF A MATERIAL FACT AND SINCE YOUR LETTER PRESENTS NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL INFORMATION NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED IT AFFORDS NO BASIS UPON WHICH WE MAY DEPART FROM OUR UNIFORM PRACTICE IN CASES OF THIS KIND AND AUTHORIZE THE PAYMENT OF ANY PART OF YOUR CLAIM FOR SUCH TRAVEL. ACCORDINGLY, THE DECISION OF NOVEMBER 5, 1965, IS AFFIRMED.

Oct 26, 2020

Oct 23, 2020

Oct 22, 2020

Oct 20, 2020

Oct 16, 2020

Looking for more? Browse all our products here