Skip to main content

A-19063, JULY 23, 1927, 7 COMP. GEN. 59

A-19063 Jul 23, 1927
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

TRANSPORTATION - DEPENDENT OF OFFICER OF THE ARMY WHERE TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS ARE ISSUED FOR TRANSPORTATION AND PULLMAN ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THE DEPENDENT OF AN OFFICER OF THE ARMY AND THE REQUEST FOR PULLMAN ACCOMMODATIONS IS RETURNED AND CANCELED. THE OFFICER IS NOT ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE PAID TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY HAD THE REQUEST BEEN USED BY THE DEPENDENT. AN OFFICER OF THE ARMY IS ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION IN KIND FOR HIS DEPENDENTS UNDER THE ACT OF MAY 18. WHEN THE TRAVEL SHALL HAVE BEEN PERFORMED UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 10. HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION IN KIND FOR A PART OF THE AUTHORIZED TRANSPORTATION UNDER THE FIRST ACT AND TO A PAYMENT IN MONEY FOR A PART OF THE AUTHORIZED TRANSPORTATION UNDER THE SECOND ACT.

View Decision

A-19063, JULY 23, 1927, 7 COMP. GEN. 59

TRANSPORTATION - DEPENDENT OF OFFICER OF THE ARMY WHERE TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS ARE ISSUED FOR TRANSPORTATION AND PULLMAN ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THE DEPENDENT OF AN OFFICER OF THE ARMY AND THE REQUEST FOR PULLMAN ACCOMMODATIONS IS RETURNED AND CANCELED, THE OFFICER IS NOT ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE PAID TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY HAD THE REQUEST BEEN USED BY THE DEPENDENT. AN OFFICER OF THE ARMY IS ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION IN KIND FOR HIS DEPENDENTS UNDER THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, 41 STAT. 604, OR IN LIEU THEREOF, TO PAYMENT OF AN AMOUNT IN MONEY EQUAL TO THE COMMERCIAL COST, WHEN THE TRAVEL SHALL HAVE BEEN PERFORMED UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922, 42 STAT. 631, BUT HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION IN KIND FOR A PART OF THE AUTHORIZED TRANSPORTATION UNDER THE FIRST ACT AND TO A PAYMENT IN MONEY FOR A PART OF THE AUTHORIZED TRANSPORTATION UNDER THE SECOND ACT.

DECISION BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL, JULY 23, 1927:

THERE IS FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ACCOUNTS OF MAJ. E. T. COMEGYS, F.D., UNITED STATES ARMY, THE LEGALITY OF PAYMENT MADE ON VOUCHER 405 OF HIS SEPTEMBER, 1926, ACCOUNTS OF $10.88, THE VALUE OF PULLMAN ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THE WIFE OF FIRST LIEUT. STERLING C. ROBERTSON, INFANTRY, UNITED STATES ARMY, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES HEREAFTER DESCRIBED.

BY PARAGRAPH 29 OF SPECIAL ORDERS 112, DATED WAR DEPARTMENT, MAY 12, 1926, LIEUTENANT ROBERTSON WAS RELIEVED FROM DUTY AT FORT BENNING, GA., AND DIRECTED TO PROCEED AT THE PROPER TIME TO NEW YORK CITY AND SAIL ON OR ABOUT JULY 28, 1926, VIA GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION FOR CHINA, REPORTING TO THE COMMANDING GENERAL, UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES IN CHINA AT TIENTSIN, FOR ASSIGNMENT TO DUTY WITH TROOPS. ON LIEUTENANT ROBERTSON'S APPLICATION DATED JULY 19, 1926, THERE WERE ISSUED TRANSPORTATION REQUEST W.Q. NO. 113629 FOR TRANSPORTATION FOR MRS. ROBERTSON FROM COLUMBUS, GA., TO NEW YORK, AND TRANSPORTATION REQUEST W.Q. NO. 113630 FOR A LOWER STANDARD PULLMAN BERTH BETWEEN THE SAME POINTS.

SOME TIME PRIOR TO AUGUST 16, 1926, LIEUTENANT ROBERTSON SEEMS TO HAVE RETURNED T.R.W.Q. NO. 113630 FOR CANCELLATION AND BY THE VOUCHER IN QUESTION CLAIMED AS "REIMBURSEMENT" THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID THE RAILROAD COMPANY HAD THE SERVICES CALLED FOR BY THE TRANSPORTATION REQUEST BEEN FURNISHED. THIS WAS PAID TO HIM. ON THE FACTS PRESENTED THE ITEM WAS SUSPENDED FOR PULLMAN RECEIPT FOR FARE PAID OR EVIDENCE THAT PULLMAN WAS USED AT PERSONAL EXPENSE. IN REPLY IT IS STATED:

1. UNDER THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, AN OFFICER IS ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION IN KIND FOR HIS DEPENDENTS WHEN TRANSFERRED FROM AN OLD PERMANENT STATION TO A NEW PERMANENT STATION. ACT APPROVED JUNE 10, 1922, PROVIDES FOR PAYMENT OF THE MONETARY ALLOWANCE IN LIEU OF TRANSPORTATION IN KIND FOR DEPENDENTS OF AN OFFICER WHEN PROCEEDING FROM AN OLD PERMANENT STATION TO A NEW PERMANENT STATION. IN THE CASE OF VOUCHER NO. 405, THIS OFFICE CONTENDS THAT ALTHOUGH A TRANSPORTATION REQUEST WAS USED FOR FARE, AND A TRANSPORTATION REQUEST FOR LOWER BERTH CANCELED AND REIMBURSEMENT MADE THEREFOR, THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO WHAT IT WOULD HAVE COST THE GOVERNMENT HAD BOTH TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS BEEN USED. THE OFFICER IN FACT RECEIVED ONLY THE AMOUNT TO WHICH HE WAS ENTITLED FOR THE TRAVEL CONCERNED. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT FOR A JOURNEY OF THIS LENGTH A DRAWING ROOM MIGHT HAVE BEEN DESIRED, AND THE TRANSPORTATION REQUEST FOR THIS REASON WAS CANCELED.

THIS EVINCES CONFUSION AS TO WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF OFFICERS UNDER THE RESPECTIVE STATUTES. THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, 41 STAT. 604, PROVIDES:

SEC. 12. THAT HEREAFTER WHEN ANY COMMISSIONED OFFICER * * * HAVING A WIFE OR DEPENDENT CHILD OR CHILDREN, IS ORDERED TO MAKE A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION, THE UNITED STATES SHALL FURNISH TRANSPORTATION IN KIND FROM FUNDS APPROPRIATED FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE ARMY * * * TO HIS NEW STATION FOR THE WIFE AND DEPENDENT CHILD OR CHILDREN: * * *

IN 27 COMP. DEC. 327, IT WAS HELD THAT THIS PROVISION DID NOT AUTHORIZE A PAYMENT TO AN OFFICER ON A COMMUTATION BASIS NOR AS REIMBURSEMENT FOR AN AMOUNT ACTUALLY EXPENDED, WHERE, AT THE OFFICER'S OWN ELECTION, HIS FAMILY USED A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION OTHER THAN THAT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT. TO THE SAME EFFECT ARE 1 COMP. GEN. 310, AND 566, THE LATTER CASE BEING IN PRINCIPLE IDENTICAL WITH THE PRESENT CASE. THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 12 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922, 42 STAT. 631, PROVIDES:

IN LIEU OF THE TRANSPORTATION IN KIND AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 12 OF AN ACT * * * APPROVED MAY 18, 1920, TO BE FURNISHED BY THE UNITED STATES FOR DEPENDENTS, THE PRESIDENT MAY AUTHORIZE THE PAYMENT IN MONEY OF AMOUNTS EQUAL TO SUCH COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION COSTS WHEN SUCH TRAVEL SHALL HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. * * *

THIS LATTER PROVISION AUTHORIZES A PAYMENT, NOT A REIMBURSEMENT, IN LIEU OF TRANSPORTATION IN KIND, AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, AND IS PAYABLE WHEN THE TRAVEL SHALL HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE METHOD OF TRAVEL AT THE OFFICER'S EXPENSE, ADOPTED BY HIM FOR TRANSPORTING HIS DEPENDENTS. 3 COMP. GEN. 237. IN DECISION OF FEBRUARY 2, 1926, 5 COMP. GEN. 569, IT WAS SAID THAT THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922, AND THE REGULATIONS THEREUNDER WERE APPLICABLE ONLY WHERE NO TRANSPORTATION IS FURNISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THAT WHERE TRANSPORTATION IN KIND IS REQUESTED AND ISSUED THERE CAN BE NO PAYMENT IN LIEU THEREOF; THAT IS, WHERE TRANSPORTATION IN KIND IS REQUESTED AND ISSUED THE RIGHTS OF THE OFFICER ARE ENTIRELY UNDER THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, AND THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922, HAS NO FIELD OF OPERATION. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THIS CASE THE OFFICER WAS ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION IN KIND FOR HIS DEPENDENT FROM COLUMBUS, GA., TO NEW YORK, UNDER THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, WHICH WAS FURNISHED; OR IN LIEU THEREOF, HE WAS ENTITLED TO A PAYMENT IN MONEY OF THE COMMERCIAL COST OF SUCH TRANSPORTATION WHEN THE TRAVEL WAS COMPLETED. HE WAS NOT, HOWEVER, ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION IN KIND FOR A PORTION OF THE JOURNEY AND TO A PAYMENT OF MONEY EQUAL TO THE COMMERCIAL COST FOR THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE JOURNEY. NOT ONLY IS THE LAW PLAIN BUT EFFECTIVE ACCOUNTING REQUIRES THE SAME LIMITATION. THE ITEM WILL BE DISALLOWED IN THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ACCOUNT.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs