B-123164, JUN. 29, 1956
Highlights
YOUR CLAIM WAS DENIED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BY LETTER OF JULY 22. WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 27. WE ADVISED YOU THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR PAYMENT. YOUR PRESENT REQUEST IS BASED ON WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE CONFLICTING STATEMENTS IN NAVY'S LETTER OF JULY 22. AS FOLLOWS: "* * * GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION WAS AVAILABLE FOR DEPENDENTS FROM SAN FRANCISCO. WOULD NOT HAVE OCCASIONED A DELAY OF MORE THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DESIRED DATE OF DEPARTURE.'. IN OUR DECISION WE STATED THAT JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROVIDE THAT TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS TO AND FROM THE UNITED STATES "WILL NOT BE OTHER THAN BY GOVERNMENT VESSEL. ITS USE WILL NOT OCCASION A DELAY OF MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS AS DETERMINED BY THE UNIFORMED SERVICE CHARGED WITH MAKING SUCH DETERMINATION.'.
B-123164, JUN. 29, 1956
TO COMMANDER J. J. CAPORASO, SC, USN:
YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 15, 1956, REQUESTS FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM LOMITA PARK, CALIFORNIA, TO GUAM, MARIANAS ISLANDS, DURING THE PERIOD MARCH 11 TO 13, 1952.
YOUR CLAIM WAS DENIED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BY LETTER OF JULY 22, 1952, AND WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 27, 1953. YOU RESUBMITTED YOUR CLAIM AND BY DECISION B-123164 OF JUNE 15, 1955, WE ADVISED YOU THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR PAYMENT. YOUR PRESENT REQUEST IS BASED ON WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE CONFLICTING STATEMENTS IN NAVY'S LETTER OF JULY 22, 1952, OUR SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 27, 1953, AND OUR DECISION OF JUNE 15, 1955, AS TO THE AVAILABILITY OF GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION.
IN ITS LETTER OF JULY 22, 1952, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ADVISED YOU, IN PERTINENT PART, AS FOLLOWS:
"* * * GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION WAS AVAILABLE FOR DEPENDENTS FROM SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. TO GUAM, M.I. AND WOULD NOT HAVE OCCASIONED A DELAY OF MORE THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DESIRED DATE OF DEPARTURE.'
IN OUR DECISION WE STATED THAT JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROVIDE THAT TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS TO AND FROM THE UNITED STATES "WILL NOT BE OTHER THAN BY GOVERNMENT VESSEL, IF AVAILABLE, AND ITS USE WILL NOT OCCASION A DELAY OF MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS AS DETERMINED BY THE UNIFORMED SERVICE CHARGED WITH MAKING SUCH DETERMINATION.' WE FURTHER STATED THAT:
"* * * SINCE NO ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF NONAVAILABILITY OF GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION SUCH AS WOULD OCCASION A DELAY OF MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS IN THE TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS WAS MADE, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE PAYMENT OF YOUR CLAIM.'
NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT AND OUR DECISION IS APPARENT. WHILE IT WAS STATED IN THE SETTLEMENT DATED AUGUST 27, 1953, OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION THAT YOUR DEPENDENTS WERE OFFERED PASSAGE ON A GOVERNMENT VESSEL SAILING ON APRIL 10, 1952, 31 DAYS AFTER THEY BEGAN TRAVEL BY COMMERCIAL AIR, SUCH STATEMENT DID NOT AND WAS NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE A DETERMINATION UNDER THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS THAT THE USE OF A GOVERNMENT VESSEL WOULD HAVE OCCASIONED A DELAY OF MORE THAN 30 DAYS. THE REGULATIONS PROVIDE THAT SUCH DETERMINATION BE MADE BY THE UNIFORMED SERVICE CONCERNED. OUR DECISION OF JUNE 15, 1955, WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETERMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, AND IN VIEW OF THAT DETERMINATION NO BASIS IS PERCEIVED FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE REGULATIONS REFER TO A "DELAY OF MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS.' THE ONLY ACTUAL DELAY WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN OCCASIONED IN YOUR CASE HAD YOUR DEPENDENTS TRAVELED BY GOVERNMENT VESSEL WOULD HAVE BEEN FROM MARCH 12 TO APRIL 10, 1952, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE, A PERIOD OF ONLY 30 DAYS. CONSEQUENTLY, THERE APPEARS NO PROPER BASIS FOR QUESTIONING THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION IN THE MATTER.
YOUR LETTER PRESENTS NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL INFORMATION NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION PREVIOUSLY TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO YOUR CLAIM WAS CORRECT AND IS SUSTAINED.