Skip to main content

B-144603, AUG. 25, 1961

B-144603 Aug 25, 1961
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

RETIRED: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 31. WERE NOT ISSUED IN CONTEMPLATION OF YOUR ESTABLISHING A RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BUT WERE ISSUED ON ACCOUNT OF YOUR MARRIAGE JUNE 26. CITED THE LAW AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE MATTER AND EXPLAINED THE REASONS WHY YOUR CLAIM IS NOT FOR ALLOWANCE. IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU REFER TO PARAGRAPHS 1150-12 AND 7012-1A OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS AND STATE THAT OUR DECISION IS AT VARIANCE WITH WHAT IS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD AND ACCEPTED WITHIN THE ARMY. THE TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS FROM THE MEMBER'S LAST DUTY STATION TO HOME UPON HIS RETIREMENT IS GOVERNED BY THE APPLICABLE LAW AND REGULATIONS WHICH WE CITED YOU. THE FACT THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME MISUNDERSTANDING WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR THE MODIFICATION OF OUR DECISIONS IN YOUR CASE.

View Decision

B-144603, AUG. 25, 1961

TO COLONEL CHARLES P. BALDWIN, USA, RETIRED:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 31, 1961, CONCERNING OUR DECISION DATED JUNE 15, 1961, B-144603, WHICH EXPLAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL INCIDENT TO YOUR RETIREMENT FROM THE UNITED STATES ARMY. YOU SAY THAT SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 129 DATED JULY 6, 1959, WHICH AMENDED SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 118 DATED JUNE 18, 1959, AND AUTHORIZED CONCURRENT TRAVEL OF YOUR WIFE, WERE NOT ISSUED IN CONTEMPLATION OF YOUR ESTABLISHING A RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BUT WERE ISSUED ON ACCOUNT OF YOUR MARRIAGE JUNE 26, 1959.

THE DECISION OF JUNE 15, 1961, AND THE EARLIER ONE DATED MARCH 1, 1961, CITED THE LAW AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE MATTER AND EXPLAINED THE REASONS WHY YOUR CLAIM IS NOT FOR ALLOWANCE. IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU REFER TO PARAGRAPHS 1150-12 AND 7012-1A OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS AND STATE THAT OUR DECISION IS AT VARIANCE WITH WHAT IS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD AND ACCEPTED WITHIN THE ARMY, AND THAT A GENERAL CLARIFICATION MAY BE DESIRABLE AS WELL AS SOME CHANGES IN THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS.

THE TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS FROM THE MEMBER'S LAST DUTY STATION TO HOME UPON HIS RETIREMENT IS GOVERNED BY THE APPLICABLE LAW AND REGULATIONS WHICH WE CITED YOU, AND THE FACT THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME MISUNDERSTANDING WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR THE MODIFICATION OF OUR DECISIONS IN YOUR CASE. THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH 1150-12 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PERTAIN TO MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES WHO ARE ENTITLED TO TRAVEL AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE TO BOTH TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT DUTY STATIONS. PARAGRAPH 7012-1A, AND THE OTHER PARAGRAPHS IN THE 7000 SERIES, OF THE REGULATIONS GOVERN ENTITLEMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE UNDER PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED FROM THE OLD STATION TO THE NEW PERMANENT STATION, INCLUDING TO HOME OF SELECTION UPON RETIREMENT. YOU WERE ADVISED IN OUR DECISIONS THAT YOU WERE ENTITLED TO TRANSPORT YOUR DEPENDENT (WIFE) FROM YOUR LAST PERMANENT DUTY STATION AT CARACAS TO THE PLACE ESTABLISHED AS YOUR RESIDENCE UPON RETIREMENT. SINCE YOU SELECTED CARACAS AS YOUR HOME YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL INCIDENT TO YOUR RETIREMENT, YOUR LAST DUTY STATION AND HOME OF SELECTION BEING LOCATED AT THE SAME PLACE AND NO TRAVEL BEING REQUIRED BETWEEN THE TWO PLACES. HENCE, THERE IS NO CONFLICT IN THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS AND THE DECISIONS RENDERED TO YOU NOR DOES IT APPEAR FROM YOUR STATEMENTS THAT CHANGES SHOULD BE MADE IN THOSE REGULATIONS.

WHILE YOUR FEELINGS IN THE MATTER ARE APPRECIATED, WE BELIEVE THAT OUR DECISIONS RELATING TO YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL INCIDENT TO YOUR RETIREMENT ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE APPLICABLE LAW AND REGULATIONS.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs