B-137851, DEC 31, 1958

B-137851, DEC 31, 1958

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

CAPTAIN LUCIEN B. CLARK:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 17, 1958, REQUESTING REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 1958, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR DEPENDENT WIFE AND CHILDREN, PLUS PER DIEM, INCIDENT TO TRAVEL FROM FORT LAWTON, WASHINGTON, TO FORT MASON, CALIFORNIA.

BY SPECIAL ORDERS NUMBER 98, DATED MAY 20, 1957, AS AMENDED BY ORDERS DATED JUNE 3, 1957, YOU WERE RELIEVED FROM DUTY AT FORT RILEY, KANSAS, AND DIRECTED TO PROCEED TO OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, FOR FURTHER ASSIGNMENT OVERSEAS, REPORTING NOT LATER THAN DECEMBER 6, 1957. CONCURRENT TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS AND SHIPMENT OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS AND AUTOMOBILE TO YOUR OVERSEAS STATION WERE AUTHORIZED. BY DISPATCH ORDERS OF NOVEMBER 6, 1957, YOU WERE DIRECTED TO REPORT TO FORT LAWTON, WASHINGTON, ON DECEMBER 4, 1957, FOR CONCURRENT SURFACE TRANSPORTATION TO OKINAWA, THE DISPATCH STATING THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY YOUR AUTOMOBILE COULD ACCOMPANY YOU ON THE VESSEL PROVIDED IT WAS TURNED IN TO THE NAVAL SUPPLY DEPOT TWO DAYS PRIOR TO THE SAILING DATE, DECEMBER 5, 1957. DISPATCH ORDERS OF NOVEMBER 6, 1957, WERE AMENDED BY DISPATCH ORDERS OF NOVEMBER 21, 1957, BY DIRECTING YOU TO REPORT DECEMBER 2, 1957, AT FORT MASON, CALIFORNIA, FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION TO YOUR OVERSEAS STATION. BY MESSAGE OF NOVEMBER 22, 1957, THE COMMANDING GENERAL, FORT RILEY, KANSAS, STATED THAT YOU ACCEPTED THE AMENDED PORT CALL FOR DECEMBER 2, 1957.

YOU ASSERTED THAT THE MESSAGE OF NOVEMBER 21 WAS CONVEYED TO YOU BY TELEPHONE AND, WHILE YOU WERE ADVISED OF THE EARLIER REPORTING DATE, YOU SAY YOU WERE NOT INFORME PRIOR TO YOUR DEPARTURE ON NOVEMBER 24, 1957, FROM FORT RILEY THAT THE PORT CALL HAD BEEN CHANGED FROM FORT LAWTON TO FORT MASON. AS A RESULT, YOU PROCEEDED TO FORT LAWTON, ARRIVING THERE ON NOVEMBER 30, 1957, WHERE YOU WERE TOLD OF THE CHANGE IN PORT CALL TO FORT MASON. HENCE, YOU PROCEEDED TO THAT STATION, ARRIVING THERE THE FOLLOWING DAY.

PARAGRAPH 3003-B OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT WHEN LEAVE OR "DELAY" PRIOR TO REPORTING TO A NEW STATION IS AUTHORIZED, THE AMOUNT OF SUCH LEAVE OR "DELAY" WILL BE ADDED TO THE DATE OF RELIEF FROM THE OLD STATION TO DETERMINE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDERS. IT CONSISTENTLY HAS BEEN HELD THAT NO OFFICIAL TRAVEL IS REQUIRED UNDER CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE TRAVELER MUST DEPART FROM HIS OLD STATION BY ORDINARY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION (RAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED) TO REACH HIS DESTINATION ON THE DATE DESIGNATED BY THE TRAVEL ORDERS. WHERE AN OFFICER IS GRANTED LEAVE OR IS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED TO DELAY IN PERFORMANCE OF THE DIRECTED TRAVEL, WHICH INCLUDES THE DELAY RESULTING FROM ADDITIONAL TRAVEL TIME NECESSARILY GRANTED TO ENABLE HIM TO TRAVEL BY AUTOMOBILE FOR HIS OWN CONVENIENCE AS DISTINGUISHED FROM TIME CONSUMED IN TRAVEL BY AUTOMOBILE UNDER ORDERS DIRECTING SUCH TRAVEL AS MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT, IT IS CONSIDERED THAT NO OFFICIAL TRAVEL IS REQUIRED UNTIL EXPIRATION OF SUCH LEAVE OR DELAY, AND IF THE ORDERS ARE CANCELLED PRIOR THERETO, ANY TRAVEL WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN PERFORMED IS REGARDED AS INCIDENT TO SUCH DELAY AND THE EXPENSES MUST BE BORNE BY THE TRAVELER. 33 COMP. GEN. 289 AND CASES CITE THEREIN. LIKEWISE, IF A MEMBER UNDER CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS DEPARTS ON LEAVE FROM HIS OLD STATION PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF HIS ORDERS AND THE ORDERS ARE AMENDED PRIOR TO SUCH EFFECTIVE DATE, HE IS ENTITLED, UPON JOINING THE NEW STATION, TO ALLOWANCES FROM THE PLACE WHERE HE RECEIVED THE ORDERS DIRECTING THE CHANGE, NOT TO EXCEED THE DISTANCE FROM THE OLD TO THE NEW STATION. PARAGRAPH 4156, CASE 7, JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS.

YOUR ORDERS DID NOT DIRECT TRAVEL BY AUTOMOBILE AND, HENCE, TRAVEL BY THAT MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION WAS FOR YOUR PERSONAL CONVENIENCE, YOUR EARLY DEPARTURE FROM FORT RILEY APPARENTLY HAVING BEEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING THE AUTOMOBILE AVAILABLE AT THE PORT OF EMBARKATION TWO DAYS PRIOR TO YOUR SAILING DATE SO THAT IT COULD BE SHIPPED ABOARD THE VESSEL.

UNDER THE ORDERS OF NOVEMBER 21 DIRECTING THAT YOU REPORT AT THE PORT OF EMBARKATION ON DECEMBER 2, 1957, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY FOR YOU TO DEPART FROM FORT RILEY BY RAIL PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 30, 1957, IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT EITHER FORT LAWTON OR FORT MASON ON THE DATE DIRECTED. HENCE, UNDER THE TERMS OF YOUR ORDERS YOU WERE NOT REQUIRED TO DEPART FROM FORT RILEY PRIOR TO THAT DATE AND IF YOU HAD REMAINED AT YOUR STATION UNTIL SUCH DATE, NO DOUBT THE ORDERS OF NOVEMBER 21 WOULD HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO YOU IN WRITING SO THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO CONFUSION CONCERNING THE STATION TO WHICH YOU WERE TO REPORT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITIONAL TRAVEL TO FORT LAWTON MUST BE CONSIDERED AS RESULTING FROM YOUR EARLY DEPARTURE FROM YOUR STATION FOR YOUR PERSONAL CONVENIENCE.

ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM AND THE SETTLEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1958, IS SUSTAINED.