B-129108, SEP. 27, 1956

B-129108, SEP. 27, 1956

TO CAPTAIN FRANK J. HEFFERNAN, USAF:

YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 13, 1956, REQUESTS REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT OF MAY 4, 1954, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR $32.62, REPRESENTING THE EXCESS COST OF SHIPPING 510 POUNDS OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS FROM HILL AIR FORCE BASE, OGDEN, UTAH, TO WALKER AIR FORCE BASE, ROSWELL, NEW MEXICO, IN NOVEMBER 1949. ALSO, YOU REQUEST DECISION AS TO WHETHER YOU ARE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUR SON'S TRAVEL FROM DAYTON, OHIO, TO COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO, UPON PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION BETWEEN THOSE POINTS.

BY ORDERS ISSUED OVERSEAS ON JULY 26, 1949, YOU WERE RELIEVED FROM ASSIGNMENT AT MUNICH, GERMANY, AND ASSIGNED TO HILL AIR FORCE BASE, OGDEN, UTAH. THOSE ORDERS WERE AMENDED BY ORDERS DATED AUGUST 12, 1949, TO CHANGE YOUR ASSIGNED STATION TO WALKER AIR FORCE BASE, ROSWELL, NEW MEXICO. ON OCTOBER 6, 1949, YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS, WHICH HAD REACHED THE NEW YORK PORT OF EMBARKATION FROM OVERSEAS, WERE SHIPPED FROM THAT PORT TO HILL AIR FORCE BASE. THEY WERE FURTHER SHIPPED FROM THE LATTER PLACE TO WALKER AIR FORCE BASE ON NOVEMBER 2, 1949, AT A COST TO THE GOVERNMENT OF $32.62, WHICH AMOUNT YOU WERE REQUIRED TO REMIT. YOUR CLAIM FOR THAT AMOUNT WAS DISALLOWED BECAUSE OF YOUR FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE NEW YORK PORT OF EMBARKATION OF THE ORDERS CHANGING YOUR STATION FROM HILL AIR FORCE BASE TO WALKER AIR FORCE BASE, AS REQUIRED BY CONTROLLING REGULATIONS.

IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU STATE THAT ALTHOUGH ORDERS HAD BEEN ISSUED, YOU DID NOT RECEIVE THEM UNTIL MID-OCTOBER 1949, AND IT APPEARS TO BE YOUR VIEW THAT YOU COULD NEITHER REQUEST SHIPMENT FROM HILL AIR FORCE BASE NOR NOTIFY THE NEW YORK PORT OF EMBARKATION OF YOUR CHANGED ASSIGNMENT PRIOR TO THAT TIME. IN AN EARLIER LETTER (DATED JUNE 5, 1953) YOU STATED THAT YOU DEPARTED GERMANY BY AIR ON AUGUST 10, 1949, AND THAT WHILE ON LEAVE FOLLOWING YOUR RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES YOU RECEIVED A TELEGRAM FROM BIGGS AIR FORCE BASE, NEW MEXICO, DIRECTING YOU TO REPORT TO WALKER AIR FORCE BASE INSTEAD OF HILL AIR FORCE BASE. AT THAT TIME YOU WERE RESIDING IN ROSWELL, NEW MEXICO, AND IT IS INDICATED THAT YOU REQUESTED THE TRANSPORTATION OFFICER AT WALKER AIR FORCE BASE TO HAVE THE SHIPMENT OF YOUR EFFECTS REROUTED FROM OGDEN TO ROSWELL. YOU STATE THAT SINCE YOU DID NOT HAVE YOUR ORDERS, NO ACTION COULD BE TAKEN TO EFFECT SUCH A CHANGE IN ROUTING AND THAT YOU OBTAINED A COPY OF THE ORDERS (APPARENTLY IN OCTOBER 1949) ONLY AFTER REPEATED TELEPHONE CALLS AND PERSONAL LETTERS TO BIGGS AIR FORCE BASE.

AT THE TIME HERE INVOLVED, THE TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES WAS GOVERNED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10053, DATED APRIL 20, 1949. PARAGRAPH 15B OF THAT ORDER PROVIDES THAT IN THE EVENT THERE SHOULD BE A CHANGE IN ORDERS AFTERSHIPMENT HAS BEEN REQUESTED, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER, UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH CHANGE, TO IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY SHIPPING OFFICERS AT POINT OF ORIGIN (OR PORT, IF ANY), AND DESTINATION, REQUESTING THAT SUCH SHIPMENT BE DIVERTED OR RECONSIGNED TO ANY NEW DESTINATION WHICH MAY BE NECESSITATED BY REASON OF THE CHANGE IN THE ORDERS. IT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT AFTER SUCH NOTICE CERTIFIED COPIES OF SUCH CHANGED ORDERS WILL BE FURNISHED BY THE OWNER UPON REQUEST.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT BY LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1949, THE TRANSPORTATION OFFICER AT WALKER AIR FORCE BASE FURNISHED THE TRANSPORTATION OFFICER AT HILL AIR FORCE BASE WITH FIVE COPIES EACH OF YOUR ORDERS OF JULY 26 AND AUGUST 12, 1949, WITH THE REQUEST THAT YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS BE SHIPPED TO ROSWELL. SUCH ACTION UNDOUBTEDLY RESULTED FROM YOUR REQUEST, AND NOT ONLY SERVES TO VERIFY THAT YOU KNEW OF THE CHANGED ASSIGNMENT BUT, ALSO, THAT YOUR ORDERS WERE AT YOUR NEW STATION LONG BEFORE YOUR EFFECTS REACHED THE PORT OF EMBARKATION. HOWEVER, THE RECORD FURTHER CONTAINS A REPORT FROM THE PORT TRANSPORTATION OFFICER, NEW YORK PORT OF EMBARKATION, THAT YOU DID NOT COMMUNICATE WITH THAT OFFICE AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO OCTOBER 6, 1949. SINCE IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT YOU WERE NOTIFIED OF THE CHANGE OF ASSIGNMENT IN AMPLE TIME TO NOTIFY THE NEW YORK PORT OF EMBARKATION, AND THAT YOU DID NOT DO SO, THE EXCESS COST OF A SECOND SHIPMENT OF YOUR EFFECTS MUST BE BORNE BY YOU.

ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF MAY 4, 1954, WAS CORRECT AND IS SUSTAINED.

WITH RESPECT TO YOUR INQUIRY RELATIVE TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUR SON'S TRANSPORTATION, WE ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO RENDER A DECISION INASMUCH AS YOUR CLAIM IS NOT PENDING HERE. ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS DISCLOSED BY YOU IT APPEARS YOU WERE REQUIRED TO REFUND THE AMOUNT PAID YOU FOR HIS TRAVEL FOR THE REASON THAT HIS TRAVEL TO THE NEW STATION WAS COMPLETED BEFORE HE BECAME FIVE YEARS OF AGE. IF YOU BELIEVE SUCH ACTION WAS INCORRECT, YOU MAY FILE A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF THAT AMOUNT.