B-127420, JUN. 26, 1956
Highlights
IS A DUPLICATE OF THE CLAIM DISALLOWED BY OUR SETTLEMENT DATED JANUARY 13. WILL BE CONSIDERED AS A REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THAT SETTLEMENT. YOU WERE TRANSFERRED FROM U.S. YOU WERE FURTHER TRANSFERRED FROM THAT VESSEL AT LONG BEACH. YOU EXECUTED AN APPLICATION TO HAVE YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS SHIPPED FROM BIRMINGHAM. WAS PLACED WITH THAT FIRM TO HAVE 1. IN RESUBMITTING YOUR CLAIM YOU SAY THAT YOUR EFFECTS WERE "SENT TO LONG BEACH ON ORDERS NUMBER 507 AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT TO CORONA ON ORDERS NUMBER 26-56.'. YOU FURTHER SAY THAT "THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF ORDERS AND THEY ARE BOTH LEGAL MOVES.'. WOULD HAVE ENTITLED YOU TO SHIPMENT FROM THE LATTER POINT TO CORONA IF SHIPMENT HAD BEEN MADE TO LONG BEACH UNDER THE 1954 ORDERS.
B-127420, JUN. 26, 1956
TO ROBERT P. WALKER, DT3, USN:
YOUR CLAIM DATED FEBRUARY 21, 1956, FOR $52.89, REPRESENTING THE EXCESS COST OF SHIPPING YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS FROM LONG BEACH TO NORCO, CALIFORNIA, IS A DUPLICATE OF THE CLAIM DISALLOWED BY OUR SETTLEMENT DATED JANUARY 13, 1956, AND WILL BE CONSIDERED AS A REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THAT SETTLEMENT.
BY ORDERS DATED JUNE 26, 1954 (S440-54), YOU WERE TRANSFERRED FROM U.S. NAVAL HOSPITAL, NAVY NO. 3923, FLEET POST OFFICE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, TO THE U.S.S. HAVEN (AH-12) FOR DUTY. BY ORDERS DATED JULY 27, 1955 (26-56), YOU WERE FURTHER TRANSFERRED FROM THAT VESSEL AT LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO U.S. NAVAL HOSPITAL, CORONA, CALIFORNIA. ON AUGUST 16, 1955, YOU EXECUTED AN APPLICATION TO HAVE YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS SHIPPED FROM BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, TO SMYTHE VAN AND STORAGE COMPANY, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AND FOR "STORAGE IN TRANSIT 60 DAYS, AT DEST.' SEPTEMBER 7, 1955, A SHIPPING ORDER, NO. 507, WAS PLACED WITH THAT FIRM TO HAVE 1,320 POUNDS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS HAULED FROM STORAGE TO YOUR RESIDENCE IN NORCO, THE ORDER PROVIDING THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD PAY THE COST FOR DELIVERY OUT 30 MILES AND THAT YOU WOULD PAY THE COST FOR THE ADDITIONAL 16 MILES. IN RESUBMITTING YOUR CLAIM YOU SAY THAT YOUR EFFECTS WERE "SENT TO LONG BEACH ON ORDERS NUMBER 507 AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT TO CORONA ON ORDERS NUMBER 26-56.' YOU FURTHER SAY THAT "THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF ORDERS AND THEY ARE BOTH LEGAL MOVES.'
THE ORDERS OF JUNE 26, 1954, ENTITLED YOU TO SHIPMENT FROM BIRMINGHAM TO LONG BEACH. THE ORDERS OF JULY 27, 1955, WOULD HAVE ENTITLED YOU TO SHIPMENT FROM THE LATTER POINT TO CORONA IF SHIPMENT HAD BEEN MADE TO LONG BEACH UNDER THE 1954 ORDERS. UNDER A COMBINATION OF BOTH ORDERS YOU COULD HAVE SHIPPED YOUR EFFECTS DIRECTLY FROM BIRMINGHAM TO CORONA. HOWEVER, AFTER THE SECOND ORDERS HAD ISSUED, YOU REQUESTED SHIPMENT TO LONG BEACH. A REPORT FROM THE U.S. NAVAL AIR STATION, BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, IS TO THE EFFECT THAT YOU SELECTED LONG BEACH AS THE DESTINATION FOR THE REASON THAT YOU WERE NOT SURE WHETHER YOU WOULD LIVE IN CORONA OR SAN PEDRO. SINCE THE SHIPMENT TO LONG BEACH WAS REQUESTED AND MADE AFTER YOU RECEIVED THE SECOND ORDERS, YOU HAD NO SHIPPING RIGHTS FROM LONG BEACH UNDER THOSE ORDERS. THUS, WHEN YOU REQUESTED FURTHER SHIPMENT TO NORCO, THE ENTIRE COST WOULD HAVE BEEN AT YOUR EXPENSE EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THE SHIPMENT TO LONG BEACH INCLUDED DELIVERY WITHIN THE LONG BEACH AREA. THEREFORE, YOU WERE CHARGED ONLY WITH THE ADDITIONAL COST INCURRED FOR THE 16 MILES TO NORCO BEYOND THE LONG BEACH AREA. THE CHARGE WAS PROPER, AND THERE APPEARS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO REIMBURSE YOU IN THAT AMOUNT.
ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF JANUARY 13, 1956, WAS CORRECT AND IS SUSTAINED.