B-143034, JUN. 15, 1960
Highlights
YOUR DEPENDENTS (WIFE AND CHILD) WERE AUTHORIZED TRANSPORTATION FROM HONOLULU. THE ORDERS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT TRANSPORTATION BEYOND THE POINT OF DEBARKATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED IF PERFORMED PRIOR TO YOUR PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION. ON THE BASIS THAT YOU WERE ENTITLED TO DEPENDENT TRANSPORTATION INCIDENT TO YOUR PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS OF NOVEMBER 9. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED MAY 9. IN YOUR LETTER YOU SAY THAT NOWHERE IN THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE TRAVEL PERFORMED IS IT INDICATED THAT TIME OF ARRIVAL AT A SUBSEQUENT NEW DUTY STATION WOULD BE A CRITERIA. IT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT WHEN ORDERS DIRECTING A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION HAVE NOT BEEN ISSUED.
B-143034, JUN. 15, 1960
TO MAJOR HENRY R. LEMA:
YOUR LETTER OF MAY 16, 1960, REQUESTS REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT DATED MAY 9, 1960, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENT (WIFE) FROM SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, TO COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND FOR DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE INCIDENT TO YOUR ORDERS OF NOVEMBER 9, 1959.
BY ORDERS DATED JANUARY 6, 1959, YOUR DEPENDENTS (WIFE AND CHILD) WERE AUTHORIZED TRANSPORTATION FROM HONOLULU, HAWAII, TO OAKLAND ARMY TERMINAL, FORT MASON, CALIFORNIA, OR PORT OF AERIAL DEBARKATION. THE ORDERS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT TRANSPORTATION BEYOND THE POINT OF DEBARKATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED IF PERFORMED PRIOR TO YOUR PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION, SUCH RESTRICTION BEING IN ACCORD WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH 7009 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS. YOUR DEPENDENTS DEBARKED IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, ON JANUARY 10, 1959, AND TRAVELED FROM THERE TO COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, ARRIVING ON JANUARY 19, 1959. ORDERS DATED NOVEMBER 9, 1959, DIRECTED YOUR RETURN TO THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES FOR DUTY AT FORT JACKSON, SOUTH CAROLINA. MARCH 7, 1960, YOU CLAIMED REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED FROM SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, TO COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, ON THE BASIS THAT YOU WERE ENTITLED TO DEPENDENT TRANSPORTATION INCIDENT TO YOUR PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS OF NOVEMBER 9, 1959. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED MAY 9, 1960, FOR THE REASON THAT THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS LIMITED TRAVEL PERFORMED BY YOUR WIFE AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE, PRIOR TO YOUR TRANSFER TO THE UNITED STATES, FROM HONOLULU, HAWAII, TO THE PORT OF DEBARKATION. IN YOUR LETTER YOU SAY THAT NOWHERE IN THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE TRAVEL PERFORMED IS IT INDICATED THAT TIME OF ARRIVAL AT A SUBSEQUENT NEW DUTY STATION WOULD BE A CRITERIA.
SECTION 303 (C) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, 37 U.S.C. 253 (C) PROVIDES IN PART THAT UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS AND FOR SUCH RANKS, GRADES, OR RATINGS AND TO AND FROM, SUCH LOCATIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARIES CONCERNED, MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES ,WHEN ORDERED TO MAKE A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION" SHALL BE ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION IN KIND FOR DEPENDENTS, OR TO REIMBURSEMENT THEREFOR, OR TO A MONETARY ALLOWANCE IN LIEU OF SUCH TRANSPORTATION IN KIND. IT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT WHEN ORDERS DIRECTING A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION HAVE NOT BEEN ISSUED, THE SECRETARIES CONCERNED, MAY, NEVERTHELESS, AUTHORIZE THE MOVEMENT OF A MEMBER'S DEPENDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD GOODS UNDER UNUSUAL AND EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING THOSE WHICH MAY ARISE WHEN A MEMBER IS ON PERMANENT DUTY OUTSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES. THOSE PROVISIONS ARE NOT SELF-EXECUTING, HOWEVER, BUT REQUIRE THE ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS BY THE SECRETARIES OF THE SERVICES CONCERNED.
PARAGRAPH 7000-9 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS RESTRICTS TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS PRIOR TO CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS ISSUED TO THE MEMBER. PARAGRAPH 7009-3, CHANGE 75, OF THOSE REGULATIONS, IN EFFECT AT THE TIME YOUR WIFE PERFORMED THE TRAVEL, LIMITS THE RETURN TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS TO THE UNITED STATES IN ADVANCE OF THE MEMBER'S CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS TO TRANSPORTATION TO THE POINT OF DEBARKATION. THAT PARAGRAPH FURTHER PROVIDES THAT UPON COMPLETION OF THE CURRENT OVERSEAS TOUR OF DUTY AND TRANSFER OF THE MEMBER TO A STATION IN THE UNITED STATES, TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE IS AUTHORIZED AT NOT TO EXCEED THE ENTITLEMENT FROM THE PORT OF DEBARKATION IN THE UNITED STATES TO THE NEW DUTY STATION.
THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS AUTHORIZING TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE IS TO RELIEVE A MEMBER OF THE BURDEN OF PERSONALLY DEFRAYING TRAVEL EXPENSES OF HIS DEPENDENTS AND THE COST OF MOVING HIS HOUSEHOLD WHEN SUCH EXPENSES ARE INCURRED AS A RESULT OF AN ORDERED CHANGE OF STATION. IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT PARAGRAPH 7009-3 OF THE REGULATIONS, CLEARLY RESTATED IN YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL ORDERS OF JANUARY 6, 1959, CONSISTENTLY HAS BEEN HELD AS LIMITING REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS BEYOND THE PORT OF DEBARKATION TO EXPENSES INCURRED FOR SUCH TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION PERFORMED AFTER ISSUANCE OF PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS TO THE MEMBER.
YOUR WIFE TRAVELED FROM HONOLULU, HAWAII, TO COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, BECAUSE HER FATHER HAD SUFFERED A HEART ATTACK AND WAS NOT EXPECTED TO SURVIVE. SHE DID NOT PERFORM THAT TRAVEL BECAUSE YOU WERE ORDERED TO FORT JACKSON, SOUTH CAROLINA. ON THE CONTRARY, YOU REQUESTED CURTAILMENT OF YOUR TOUR OF DUTY IN HAWAII AND REASSIGNMENT TO FORT JACKSON, SOUTH CAROLINA, BECAUSE YOUR WIFE WAS AT COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND YOU COULD BE REUNITED WITH YOUR FAMILY. WHILE WE ARE NOT UNMINDFUL OF THE UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT NECESSITATED YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL, IT IS CLEAR THAT SHE DID NOT PERFORM THE TRAVEL AS A RESULT OF YOUR CHANGE OF STATION. THEREFORE, WE ARE WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO ALLOW YOUR CLAIM FOR HER TRAVEL OR FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE.
ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF MAY 9, 1960, WAS CORRECT AND IS SUSTAINED.