B-122712, APR 21, 1955

B-122712, APR 21, 1955

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

LIEUTENANT THEODORE MH. TEPLOW:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 30, 1954, REQUESTING REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 24, 1954, DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND OF $15.27 CHECKED IN YOUR PAY ACCOUNT FOR EXCESS COST OF SHIPPING HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS BY EXPRESS FROM BROCKTON, MASSACHUSETTS, TO NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA.

BY ORDERS DATED SEPTEMBER 23, 1953, YOU WERE ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY FROM BROCKTON, MASSACHUSETTS, AND ASSIGNED TO DUTY AT NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, WHERE YOU REPORTED ON OCTOBER 30, 1953. PURSUANT TO YOUR APPLICATION DATED NOVEMBER 10, 1953, HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WEIGHING 726 POUNDS GROSS WERE SHIPPED BY RAILWAY EXPRESS FROM BROCKTON, MASSACHUSETTS, TO NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, ON GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING NO. N-30072832, DATED NOVEMBER 24, 1953, AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE OF $87.48, PAID ON VOUCHER NO. 296415, FEBRUARY 1954 ACCOUNTS OF P. C. VANSOELEN. SINCE THE GROSS WEIGHT OF THE EFFECTS SHIPPED BY RAILWAY EXPRESS EXCEEDED BY 226 POUNDS YOUR MAXIMUM AUTHORIZED WEIGHT ALLOWANCE OF 500 POUNDS, YOUR PAY ACCOUNT WAS CHARGED WITH EXCESS COST OF $15.27, REPRESENTING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST OF SHIPPING 226 POUNDS BY EXPRESS RATHER THAN BY FREIGHT. YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND OF THE AMOUNT SO CHECKED IN YOUR ACCOUNT WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 24, 1954. IN YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT YOU SAY THAT THE NET WEIGHT OF EFFECTS SHIPPED DID NOT EXCEED 350 POUNDS, AND THAT THE EXCESS WEIGHT WAS BECAUSE OF THE USE OF PACKING AND CRATING MATERIALS IN EXCESS OF THOSE USED IN THE USUAL STANDARD COMMERCIAL PRACTICE. ON THAT BASIS YOU URGE THAT NO EXCESS COST IS PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO YOU.

OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL TO WEIGH BEFORE PACKING AT ORIGIN OR AFTER UNPACKING AT DESTINATION EACH OF THE MANY SHIPMENTS OF EFFECTS MADE FOR SERVICE PERSONNEL AND TO COMPUTE EXCESS COSTS ON THE BASIS OF THE ACTUAL NET WEIGHT SO ASCERTAINED. THEREFORE, THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT TO STATUTORY AUTHORITY PROVIDES (PARAGRAPH 8001-1) FOR A PERCENTAGE INCREASE OVER AUTHORIZED NET WEIGHT TO COVER THE MATERIALS USED FOR PACKING AND CRATING. THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE OVER NET WEIGHT IS INTENDED GENERALLY TO EQUALIZE THE QUANTITY OF EFFECTS WHICH MAY BE SHIPPED BY VARIOUS MEMBERS USING THE SEVERAL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZED, THAT IS, WATER, RAIL, OR VAN. WHILE THE ACTUAL WEIGHT OF PACKING MATERIALS NECESSARY TO INSURE SAFE SHIPMENT MAY EXCEED AND FREQUENTLY DOES EXCEED THE PERCENTAGE OF ADDITIONAL WEIGHT SO AUTHORIZED, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO DETERMINE THAT THE EXCESS COST OF A PARTICULAR SHIPMENT RESULTED FROM THE MANNER IN WHICH THE EFFECTS WERE PACKED. YOUR CASE THE PACKER HAS REPORTED THAT THE EFFECTS WERE CRATED FOR SHIPMENT BY RAILWAY EXPRESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE USUAL STANDARD COMMERCIAL PRACTICE. PARAGRAPH 8052 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS AUTHORIZES, IN CERTAIN CASES, SHIPMENT OF EFFECTS BY EXPRESS, WHICH MAY NOT EXCEED A TOTAL GROSS WEIGHT OF 500 POUNDS UNLESS THE SHIPPING OFFICER DESIGNATES EXPRESS AS THE METHOD OF SHIPMENT. SINCE THE SHIPPING OFFICER DID NOT DESIGNATE EXPRESS AS THE METHOD OF SHIPMENT OF YOUR EFFECTS, THE MAXIMUM GROSS WEIGHT AUTHORIZED TO BE SHIPPED FOR YOU BY EXPRESS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE WAS 500 POUNDS. THUS, YOU WERE PROPERLY CHARGEABLE WITH THE COST INCURRED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN SHIPPING BY EXPRESS 226 POUNDS IN EXCESS OF THE WEIGHT AUTHORIZED FOR SHIPMENT BY THAT MEANS.

ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF NOVEMBER 24, 1954, IS SUSTAINED.