B-113943, APR 20, 1953

B-113943, APR 20, 1953

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

MR. JOHN HARGIS BUSH:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 10, 1953, REQUESTING REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT OF DECEMBER 2, 1953, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM NORWICH, CONNECTICUT, TO VENTURA, CALIFORNIA, AND RETURN, INCIDENT TO YOUR SERVICE AS AN ENLISTED MAN, UNITED STATES NAVAL RESERVE.

BY ORDERS DATED OCTOBER 28, 1950, ADDRESSED TO YOU AT NORWICH, CONNECTICUT, YOU WERE ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY AND, IF FOUND PHYSICALLY QUALIFIED, WERE TO PROCEED TO NAVAL RECRUITING STATION, NEW YORK, FOR PROCESSING AND TRANSFER TO NAVAL RECEIVING STATION, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, FOR OUTFITTING AND GENERAL DETAIL. YOU EVIDENTLY WERE TRANSFERRED FROM THE LATTER PLACE TO NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, FOR TEMPORARY DUTY, AND THE RECORD SHOWS THAT BY ORDERS DATED JANUARY 8, 1951, YOU WERE FURTHER TRANSFERRED TO PORT HUENEME, CALIFORNIA, FOR DUTY. ON MAY 16, 1951, YOU RE-ENLISTED IN THE NAVAL RESERVE AND IT APPEARS THAT YOU THEN WERE INFORMED YOU WOULD BE ON ACTIVE DUTY FOR ONE YEAR. YOU WERE RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY EFFECTIVE MAY 16, 1952. YOUR DEPENDENTS (WIFE AND DAUGHTER) TRAVELED FROM NORWICH, CONNECTICUT, TO MISSION BELL TOURIST COURT, VENTURA, CALIFORNIA, APRIL 24 TO 29, 1952, AND RETURNED TO NORWICH, CONNECTICUT, MAY 7 TO 29, 1952. IN REQUESTING REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT YOU STATE THAT YOUR WIFE BECAME ILL IN APRIL 1952; THAT YOU RETURNED TO YOUR HOME, NORWICH, AT THAT TIME; THAT UPON HER DISCHARGE FROM THE HOSPITAL YOU DECIDED TO TAKE YOUR FAMILY TO CALIFORNIA FOR THE BALANCE OF YOUR SERVICE; AND THAT YOU WERE INFORMED BY A DISBURSING OFFICER THAT YOU WOULD BE ENTITLED TO "REIMBURSEMENT FOR THEIR TRAVEL."

THE TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES AT PUBLIC EXPENSE IS AUTHORIZED UPON CHANGE OF PERMANENT STATION, INCLUDING THE CHANGE FROM HOME TO FIRST STATION AND FROM LAST STATION TO HOME. HOWEVER, TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE WITHIN THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF LAW AND REGULATIONS AUTHORIZING SUCH TRAVEL UNLESS SUCH TRAVEL ACTUALLY IS INCIDENT TO A CHANGE OF RESIDENCE AND INCIDENT TO A CHANGE OF STATION OF THE PERSON IN THE ARMED SERVICE. TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE IS NOT AUTHORIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MERELY VISITING THE SERVICEMAN. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ALTHOUGH YOU WERE ORDERED TO PORT HUENEME, CALIFORNIA, ON JANUARY 8, 1951, YOUR DEPENDENTS DID NOT TRAVEL THERETO UNTIL THE LATTER PART OF APRIL 1952, AT WHICH TIME YOU HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT YOUR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY WAS IMMINENT. WHILE THE ORDERS EFFECTING YOUR RELEASE HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED, IT APPEARS THAT YOU RECEIVED SUCH ORDERS APPROXIMATELY ONE WEEK AFTER THE ARRIVAL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS. IN VIEW OF YOUR IMPENDING RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY, IT SEEMS APPARENT THAT THE TRAVEL INVOLVED WAS NOT INCIDENT TO A CHANGE OF RESIDENCE AND AMOUNTED TO NOTHING MORE THAN A VISIT. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE COST INCURRED IS NOT AUTHORIZED, AND THE SETTLEMENT OF DECEMBER 2, 1952, MUST BE SUSTAINED.