B-125289, APR. 16, 1956

B-125289, APR. 16, 1956

TO BRIGADIER GENERAL ARNOLD J. FUNK, USA, RETIRED:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 31, 1956, IN WHICH YOU REQUEST FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN THE MATTER OF YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF AN AMOUNT COLLECTED FROM YOU AS EXCESS COSTS INVOLVED IN DRAYING, UNPACKING, AND UNCRATING HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS SHIPPED BY YOU FROM FORT WORTH, TEXAS, TO SARASOTA, FLORIDA, INCIDENT TO YOUR RETIREMENT FROM ACTIVE SERVICE IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY UNDER ORDERS OF MAY 13, 1952.

IN DECISION OF JANUARY 25, 1956, B-125289, THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM BY UR SETTLEMENT OF MAY 6, 1955, WAS REVIEWED AND YOU WERE ADVISED THAT GOVERNING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS REQUIRED A CONCLUSION THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS OBLIGATED ONLY FOR $80.11 OF THE $288.14 DRAYAGE, UNPACKING, AND UNCRATING COSTS OF THE SHIPMENT FROM FORT WORTH. THAT CONCLUSION WAS REACHED ON THE BASIS THAT SUCH AMOUNT REPRESENTED THE PRORATED PORTION OF THE AUTHORIZED SHIPPING ALLOWANCE OF YOUR RANK ATTRIBUTABLE TO THAT SHIPMENT BECAUSE OF TWO PRIOR SHIPMENTS FROM CAMP EDWARDS, MASSACHUSETTS, TO SARASOTA UNDER THE SAME ORDERS. SUCH PRORATING WAS DONE IN COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 8100-3 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS WHICH PROVIDES THAT WHERE MORE THAN ONE SHIPMENT IS MADE, EXCESS COSTS INVOLVED ARE CHARGEABLE TO THE SHIPMENT CONTAINING THE EXCESS WEIGHT, IT BEING OUR VIEW THAT IT WAS THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTENTION OF THOSE REGULATIONS THAT COSTS INVOLVED IN SHIPPING HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS, INCLUDING COLLATERAL DRAYAGE, UNPACKING, AND UNCRATING COSTS, SHOULD BE AN OBLIGATION OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR EACH SUCCESSIVE SHIPMENT WITHIN THE WEIGHT ALLOWANCE AND THAT THE EXCESS COSTS SHOULD BE ASSESSED ONLY AGAINST THE FINAL SHIPMENT CONTAINING THE EXCESS WEIGHT. IN OTHER WORDS, EACH SHIPMENT MUST BE CONSIDERED AS A SELF-CONTAINED UNIT. THE DRAYAGE AND UNPACKING COSTS OF THOSE SHIPMENTS, WITHIN THE BASIC ALLOWANCE, ARE OBLIGATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT. IN THE FINAL SHIPMENT, HOWEVER, WHERE EXCESS WEIGHT IS INVOLVED, SUCH COSTS ARE A GOVERNMENT OBLIGATION ONLY INSOFAR AS THEY INVOLVE THE BALANCE OF THE BASIC WEIGHT ALLOWANCE UNUSED IN PRIOR SHIPMENTS. THE METHOD OF COMPUTATION SUGGESTED BY YOU DOES NOT RECOGNIZE NOR GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITED REGULATIONS AND SO MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED AS FURNISHING A PROPER BASIS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF YOUR RIGHTS IN THE MATTER.

YOU REFER TO THE FIRST SHIPMENT, INVOLVING BAGGAGE WITH A NET WEIGHT OF 720 POUNDS, AS BEING AUTHORIZED IN ADDITION TO THE NET AUTHORIZATION OF 12,000 POUNDS OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS AND SUGGEST THEREFORE THAT IT SHOULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED THE COMPUTATION. THE TERM "HOUSEHOLD GOODS" IS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH 8000-2, HOWEVER, AS INCLUDING BAGGAGE EXCEPT PERSONAL BAGGAGE WHEN CARRIED FREE ON TICKETS. THE INCLUSION OF THE 720-POUND BAGGAGE SHIPMENT AS A PART OF THE AUTHORIZED 12,000-POUND ALLOWANCE THEREFORE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PROPER.

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE SHIPMENT OF YOUR EFFECTS HAS BEEN REVIEWED AGAIN, BUT IT IS CONCLUDED THAT YOU WERE PROPERLY ADVISED IN THE DECISION OF JANUARY 25, 1956; THAT IS, THAT THE SUM OF $208.03 IS CHARGEABLE TO YOU AS EXCESS COSTS OF THE SHIPMENT FROM FORT WORTH TO SARASOTA AND THEREFORE THAT YOU ARE INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES FOR THAT AMOUNT LESS THE SUM OF $123.54 PREVIOUSLY PAID BY YOU AS EXCESS COSTS CND LESS ANY ALLOWABLE DRAYAGE AND UNCRATING EXPENSES THAT YOU MAY HAVE INCURRED IN THE PRIOR SHIPMENTS.