B-144603, JUN. 15, 1961

B-144603, JUN. 15, 1961

TO COLONEL CHARLES P. BALDWIN, USA, RETIRED:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED MARCH 26, 1961, IN REPLY TO THAT PART OF OUR DECISION OF MARCH 1, 1961, WHICH SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL INCIDENT TO YOUR RETIREMENT FROM THE UNITED STATES ARMY.

AS SET OUT IN OUR DECISION OF MARCH 1, 1961, B-144603, SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 118, DATED JUNE 18, 1959, HAD THE EFFECT OF ORDERING YOUR TRANSFER TO FORT HAMILTON, NEW YORK, FOR TEMPORARY DUTY FOR RETIREMENT PROCESSING AND THE PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION IN YOUR CASE FOR PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHING THE RIGHT TO TRANSPORTATION FOR DEPENDENTS ON RETIREMENT WAS FROM YOUR LAST PERMANENT DUTY STATION, WHICH WAS CARACAS, VENEZUELA, TO YOUR HOME TO BE SELECTED INCIDENT TO SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 123, DATED JUNE 22, 1959, ORDERING YOUR RETIREMENT EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 1959, WHICH PLACE ALSO WAS CARACAS, VENEZUELA. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL FROM FORT HAMILTON TO CARACAS WAS SUSTAINED.

IN YOUR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION YOU REITERATE THAT YOU WERE ORDERED TO FORT HAMILTON UNDER PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS AND THAT YOUR DEPENDENT PROCEEDED TO FORT HAMILTON WITHOUT QUESTION UNDER THOSE ORDERS, AND YOU SUGGEST THAT SINCE SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 123 ALSO WERE PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS YOU WERE ENTITLED TO HER TRANSPORTATION FROM FORT HAMILTON TO YOUR HOME OF SELECTION IN CARACAS. YOU ASK WHY THE TRAVEL OF YOUR WIFE TO FORT HAMILTON WAS RECOGNIZED AND ACCEPTED WHILE HER SUBSEQUENT TRIP FROM FORT HAMILTON TO VENEZUELA WAS NOT. YOU ALSO ASK WHY THE DURATION OF YOUR STAY AT FORT HAMILTON ALTERED THE NATURE OF YOUR ASSIGNMENT THERE WHEN YOU WERE ORDERED TO THAT POINT ON PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS.

PARAGRAPH 1150-10A OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS DEFINES A PERMANENT DUTY STATION AS THE POST OF DUTY OR OFFICIAL STATION TO WHICH A MEMBER IS ASSIGNED OR ATTACHED FOR DUTY OTHER THAN ,TEMPORARY DUTY" OR "TEMPORARY ADDITIONAL DUTY.' GENERALLY, A MEMBER WHO IS ON DUTY OVERSEAS IS RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HIS RETIREMENT. HIS RETIREMENT IS EFFECTED AT THE APPROPRIATE PERSONNEL PROCESSING ACTIVITY ADJACENT TO THE PORT OF ENTRY SERVING THE OVERSEAS AREA. IT IS NOT CONTEMPLATED THAT THE MEMBER WILL BE REQUIRED TO PERFORM ANY DUTY AT THE PROCESSING ACTIVITY OTHER THAN SUCH TEMPORARY DUTY AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR EFFECTING HIS RETIREMENT AND RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE PLACE OF PROCESSING FOR RETIREMENT IS REGARDED AS A TEMPORARY DUTY STATION, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDERS STATE OTHERWISE, AND THE PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION INVOLVED IS FROM OVERSEAS TO THE HOME SELECTED BY THE MEMBER INCIDENT TO HIS RETIREMENT.

SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 118 ORDERED YOU TO FORT HAMILTON FOR A PERIOD OF SHORT DURATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF RETIREMENT. NO DUTY WAS CONTEMPLATED OTHER THAN SUCH TEMPORARY DUTY AS WAS NECESSARY FOR PROCESSING YOUR RETIREMENT AND RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY. THEREFORE, IN YOUR CASE, FORT HAMILTON WAS ONLY A TRANSFER STATION TO WHICH YOU WERE ASSIGNED FOR TEMPORARY DUTY PENDING FURTHER ORDERS. SUCH FURTHER ORDERS TOOK FORM AS SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 123, WHICH ANNOUNCED YOUR RETIREMENT, EFFECTED YOUR SEPARATION FROM ACTIVE DUTY AND AUTHORIZED YOUR PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION TO YOUR HOME OF SELECTION PROVIDED TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED WITHIN ONE YEAR. UNDER SUCH ORDERS YOU WERE ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION FOR YOUR WIFE FROM YOUR LAST DUTY STATION TO YOUR HOME OF SELECTION, AND SINCE BOTH WERE CARACAS, VENEZUELA, THERE EXISTS NO AUTHORITY FOR HER TRAVEL FROM FORT HAMILTON TO CARACAS.

CONCURRENT TRAVEL FOR YOUR WIFE FROM CARACAS TO NEW YORK WAS AUTHORIZED BY SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 129, JULY 6, 1959, AMENDING SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 118, PRESUMABLY IN CONTEMPLATION OF YOUR ESTABLISHING A RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES, IN WHICH EVENT THE RIGHT TO HER TRANSPORTATION TO FORT HAMILTON AND THENCE TO THE ESTABLISHED RESIDENCE WOULD BECOME FIXED. SUCH RIGHT, HOWEVER, WOULD BE CONTINGENT UPON THE SELECTION OF A HOME AT A POINT REQUIRING TRAVEL AWAY FROM CARACAS, AND THE FACT THAT THE TRAVEL TO FORT HAMILTON WAS AUTHORIZED IN ANTICIPATION THAT TRAVEL TO A POINT IN THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE INVOLVED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED TO ENLARGE THE BASIC RIGHT TO TRANSPORTATION FOR DEPENDENTS FROM LAST DUTY STATION TO SELECTED HOME WHICH, IN YOUR CASE, INVOLVED NO TRAVEL. CONSEQUENTLY THE CONCLUSION THAT NO AUTHORITY EXISTS FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL FROM FORT HAMILTON TO CARACAS WAS PROPER AND REQUIRED. FURTHERMORE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED, IT WOULD APPEAR DOUBTFUL THAT AUTHORITY EXISTED FOR HER TRANSPORTATION FROM CARACAS TO FORT HAMILTON UNDER THE ORDERS OF JULY 6, 1959.

WE HOPE THAT THIS FURTHER EXPLANATION OF OUR DECISION CLARIFIES THE MATTER TO YOUR SATISFACTION.