B-128614, AUG. 29, 1956

B-128614, AUG. 29, 1956

TO CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER JAMES J. CARNEY, USN:

YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 28, 1956, REQUESTS REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT OF MAY 8, 1956, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENT (WIFE) FROM SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, TO TOKYO, JAPAN, BY COMMERCIAL AIR DURING THE PERIOD MARCH 6 TO AUGUST 8, 1950.

BY ORDERS DATED FEBRUARY 16, 1950, YOU WERE DETACHED FROM ASSIGNMENT AT THE UNITED STATES NAVAL RECEIVING STATION, WASHINGTON, D.C., AND DIRECTED TO PROCEED TO THE RECEIVING STATION, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, FOR FURTHER TRANSPORTATION TO JAPAN. ON MARCH 29, 1950, YOU WERE FURNISHED GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION TO JAPAN. ORDERS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED OFFERING TRANSPORTATION TO YOUR WIFE ABOARD THE U.S.N.S. GENERAL H. J. GAFFEY SAILING FOR TOKYO ON JULY 31, 1950. THIS OFFER OF TRANSPORTATION WAS CANCELED AFTER THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS ISSUED A DISPATCH ON JULY 8, 1950, WHICH DIRECTED CANCELLATION OF ALL PORT CALLS ISSUED TO DEPENDENTS DESTINED FOR ALASKA, HAWAII, OR OTHER PACIFIC DESTINATIONS WHO ARRIVED AT PORT OF EMBARKATION NOT IN TIME TO EMBARK BY JULY 14, 1950, AND ALSO PROVIDED THAT SUCH DEPENDENTS WERE TO BE RETURNED TO POINT OF ORIGIN AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE. IT WAS STATED FURTHER "ADVISE DEPENDENTS TRANSPORTATION IS INDEFINITELY SUSPENDED DUE TO ASSIGNMENT OF AVAILABLE LIFT TO HIGHER CATEGORY PERSONNEL MOVEMENTS," AND THAT DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS WOULD FOLLOW.

ON JULY 10, 1950, THE BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL IMPLEMENTED THE DISPATCH OF JULY 8, 1950, OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS BY GRANTING AUTHORITY TO ALL NAVAL DISTRICT COMMANDANTS TO ARRANGE TRANSPORTATION TO POINT OF ORIGIN OR A SELECTED PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE FOR THOSE DEPENDENTS EN ROUTE TO PACIFIC DESTINATIONS WHOSE TRAVEL TERMINATED AT SAN FRANCISCO OR SEATTLE DUE TO SUSPENSION OF TRAVEL TO PACIFIC DESTINATIONS. ON JULY 31, 1950, THE BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL IN MESSAGE NO. 71595, ADDRESSED TO ALL NAVAL DISTRICT COMMANDANTS, FURTHER AMPLIFIED RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS ON TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS TO PACIFIC DESTINATIONS, BY STATING THAT ANY TRAVEL PERFORMED BY DEPENDENTS TO THOSE DESTINATIONS, ON OR AFTER JULY 15, 1950, AT PERSONAL EXPENSE WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO REIMBURSEMENT UNLESS EXCEPTIONS TO THE CONTRARY WERE MADE IN EACH SPECIFIC CASE BY THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS. FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION WAS CONTAINED IN ALNAV NO. 87, AUGUST 21, 1950, TO WHICH YOU REFER. ON AUGUST 7, 1950, YOUR WIFE TRAVELED BY COMMERCIAL AIR FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO TOKYO. THIS TRANSPORTATION COST $674 FOR WHICH YOU NOW CLAIM REIMBURSEMENT.

IT HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT THE RIGHT TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE ONE BUT IS ONE WHICH MAY BE ADMINISTRATIVELY SUSPENDED OR DENIED FOR MILITARY REASONS, AND THAT WHERE TRANSPORTATION IS ADMINISTRATIVELY REFUSED BY REASON OF MILITARY NECESSITY OR EXPEDIENCY A MEMBER MAY NOT TRANSPORT HIS DEPENDENTS AT PERSONAL EXPENSES AND BE PAID THE COST UNDER A STATUTE AUTHORIZING REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS UPON PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION. CULP V. UNITED STATES, 76 C.CLS. 507. IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT YOUR WIFE WAS PERMITTED TO STAY IN JAPAN AND WAS FURNISHED PUBLIC QUARTERS. SINCE YOUR DEPENDENT TRAVELED FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO JAPAN AT A TIME WHEN TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS TO PACIFIC DESTINATIONS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE WAS PROHIBITED BY REASON OF MILITARY EXPEDIENCY, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF SUCH TRAVEL.

ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF MAY 8, 1956, WAS CORRECT AND IS SUSTAINED.