B-156164, MAR. 9, 1965

B-156164, MAR. 9, 1965

TO MR. ROBERT A. NOOR:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 6, 1965, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR SETTLEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2, 1965, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS FROM PLATTSBURGH, NEW YORK TO SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA.

THE RECORDS SHOW THAT YOU WERE DIRECTED TO PROCEED FROM PLATTSBURGH, NEW YORK, TO SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA FOR PERMANENT DUTY PURSUANT TO OFFICIAL ORDERS DATED DECEMBER 28, 1962. THE TRAVEL ORDER AUTHORIZED THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS WITHIN THE AUTHORIZED WEIGHT LIMITATION. YOU PLACED YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS IN STORAGE AND YOU AND YOUR WIFE TRAVELED TO SAN DIEGO. UPON ARRIVING THERE YOU WERE INFORMED THAT THE POSITION YOU HAD BEEN APPOINTED TO HAD BEEN VACATED DUE TO A REDUCTION -IN-FORCE ACTION. YOU THEN TRAVELED TO HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA, IN PURSUIT OF OTHER EMPLOYMENT AND OBTAINED A POSITION WITH THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION. ON FEBRUARY 6, 1963, YOUR FURNITURE WAS SHIPPED FROM PLATTSBURGH TO HUNTSVILLE AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE. IN OCTOBER 1963 YOU RETIRED FROM THE FEDERAL SERVICE AND SHIPPED YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS FROM HUNTSVILLE TO CALIFORNIA.

IN 27 COMP. GEN. 267 WE HELD AS FOLLOWS:

"AN EMPLOYEE WHO WAS ORDERED FROM ONE OFFICIAL STATION TO ANOTHER AND WHO, BEFORE SHIPMENT OF HIS HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS TO SUCH NEW STATION, WAS TRANSFERRED TO A THIRD STATION TO WHICH SHIPMENT WAS MADE WITHIN THE TWO- YEAR ALLOWABLE PERIOD IS ENTITLED, UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9805 ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE STATUTE OF AUGUST 2, 1946, TO REIMBURSEMENT ON A COMMUTED BASIS FOR SHIPMENT FROM THE FIRST TO THE THIRD STATION, ONLY, BASED UPON THE SHORT-LINE DISTANCE BETWEEN SUCH POINTS, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ACTUAL COST OF SUCH SINGLE SHIPMENT.'

SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HERE INVOLVED ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE CONSIDERED IN 27 COMP. GEN. 267 WHAT WE SAID THEREIN AS QUOTED ABOVE IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE HERE. SEE ALSO 27 COMP. GEN. 513. CONCERNING THE SHIPMENT OF YOUR EFFECTS FROM HUNTSVILLE UPON YOUR SEPARATION FOR RETIREMENT WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY LAW OR REGULATION UNDER WHICH YOU MAY BE REIMBURSED FOR THE EXPENSES OF SUCH SHIPMENT, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT YOU MAY HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO SHIPMENT OF YOUR EFFECTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE FROM PLATTSBURGH (PERU) TO SAN DIEGO IF THE EFFECTS HAD BEEN SO SHIPPED AT THE TIME. SINCE YOU ELECTED TO SHIP THE EFFECTS FROM PLATTSBURGH TO HUNTSVILLE, THE GOVERNMENT WAS RELIEVED OF ANY FURTHER OBLIGATION TO SHIP THE EFFECTS TO SAN DIEGO WHEN YOU WERE FINALLY SEPARATED FROM THE SERVICE.

THEREFORE, THE ACTION TAKEN IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2, 1965, OF DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM IS SUSTAINED.

IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION AS TO WHERE YOU MAY HAVE YOUR CASE REVIEWED YOU ARE ADVISED THAT THE DECISIONS OF OUR OFFICE ARE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE UPON THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THERE IS NO PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED FOR APPEALING FROM SUCH DECISIONS. HOWEVER, YOUR ATTENTION IS CALLED TO THE PROVISIONS OF 28 U.S.C. 1346; ID. 1491, CONCERNING MATTERS COGNIZABLE IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS.