B-71209, AUG. 9, 1955

B-71209: Aug 9, 1955

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

USAF (MC): REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 4. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED AUGUST 9. UPON REVIEW SUCH ACTION WAS SUSTAINED BY DECISION OF JANUARY 31. IN WHICH YOU WERE ADVISED THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM. THAT YOU ALLOWED THE SHIPMENTS TO REMAIN IN STORAGE UNTIL FURTHER MOVEMENT WAS NECESSARY. WHICH YOU EVIDENTLY BELIEVE MAY HAVE SOME BEARING ON YOUR CLAIM. THE MAIN BASIS FOR YOUR CLAIM APPEARS TO BE THAT THE EXCESS COST WHICH RESULTED FROM THE SHIPMENT OF YOUR EFFECTS WAS DUE TO THE EXCESSIVE WEIGHT OF THE PACKING MATERIALS USED BY THE GOVERNMENT OR ITS AGENTS IN PACKING THOSE EFFECTS AND THAT THEREFORE YOU SHOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH EXCESS COSTS.

B-71209, AUG. 9, 1955

TO COLONEL HARTWIN A. SCHULZE, USAF (MC):

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 4, 1955, RELATIVE TO YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID BY YOU TO THE GOVERNMENT AS EXCESS COST FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS FROM BELLBLUFF, VIRGINIA, TO SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.

YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED AUGUST 9, 1954, AND UPON REVIEW SUCH ACTION WAS SUSTAINED BY DECISION OF JANUARY 31, 1955, B-71209, IN WHICH YOU WERE ADVISED THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM. IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU STATE THAT TWO OF THE SHIPMENTS ORIGINATED IN EUROPE INCIDENT TO YOUR RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER ORDERS DATED JUNE 14, 1949, AND THAT YOU ALLOWED THE SHIPMENTS TO REMAIN IN STORAGE UNTIL FURTHER MOVEMENT WAS NECESSARY. YOU REITERATE YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE EXCESS WEIGHT RESULTED FROM THE USE OF EXCESSIVE PACKING AND CRATING MATERIALS FOR THE OCEAN SHIPMENT. ALSO, YOU REFER TO SPECIAL REGULATIONS 55-160-1, DATED JUNE 22, 1949, WHICH YOU EVIDENTLY BELIEVE MAY HAVE SOME BEARING ON YOUR CLAIM.

THE MAIN BASIS FOR YOUR CLAIM APPEARS TO BE THAT THE EXCESS COST WHICH RESULTED FROM THE SHIPMENT OF YOUR EFFECTS WAS DUE TO THE EXCESSIVE WEIGHT OF THE PACKING MATERIALS USED BY THE GOVERNMENT OR ITS AGENTS IN PACKING THOSE EFFECTS AND THAT THEREFORE YOU SHOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH EXCESS COSTS. AS WAS EXPLAINED TO YOU IN THE DECISION OF JANUARY 31, 1955, THE REGULATIONS PRESCRIBE DEFINITE PERCENTAGE INCREASES FOR PACKING OF EFFECTS WHICH MAY BE ADDED TO THE AUTHORIZED WEIGHT ALLOWANCE. THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE IS GOVERNED BY THOSE REGULATIONS AND MAY NOT ALLOW AMOUNTS FOR PACKING AND CRATING IN EXCESS OF THOSE PRESECRIBED. WHILE IN A PARTICULAR CASE THE ALLOWABLE INCREASE MAY NOT COVER THE WEIGHT OF PACKING MATERIAL USED, THAT FACT DOES NOT PERMIT THIS OFFICE TO DEPART FROM THE REGULATIONS.

THE REGULATIONS OF JUNE 22, 1949, REFERRED TO BY YOU, PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF SPECIALLY CONSTRUCTED HOUSEHOLD GOODS SHIPPING BOXES ON WHICH BOTH GROSS AND TARE WEIGHTS ARE STENCILED. HOWEVER, SINCE BOXES OF THAT CHARACTER DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN USED IN THE SHIPMENT HERE INVOLVED, THOSE REGULATIONS HAVE NO BEARING ON YOUR CLAIM.

IN COMPUTING THE EXCESS COST MENTIONED IN THE DECISION OF JANUARY 31, 1955, THE WEIGHT ALLOWANCE FOR THE TWO SHIPMENTS WHICH ORIGINATED OVERSEAS WAS NOT INCREASED BY THE AUTHORIZED PERCENTAGE FOR PACKING. FAILURE TO GRANT THAT AUTHORIZED WEIGHT INCREASE RESULTED IN THE REQUEST THAT YOU REMIT THE SUM OF $40.36. RECOMPUTATION OF THE COST OF THE SHIPMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION NOW OF RECORD DISCLOSES THAT SUCH REFUND IS NOT REQUIRED AND THE DECISION IS MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY. YOUR LETTER AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR FURTHER MODIFICATION OF THAT DECISION.

Nov 25, 2020

Nov 24, 2020

Nov 20, 2020

Nov 19, 2020

Looking for more? Browse all our products here