B-158085, JAN. 4, 1966
Highlights
USN: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 10. YOU WERE TRANSFERRED FROM THE U.S.S. YOU WERE DETACHED FROM THE FIRST VESSEL ON JANUARY 13. ON THE BASIS OF YOUR STATEMENT THAT THE TRAVEL BETWEEN THOSE POINTS HAD BEEN PERFORMED AT THAT TIME INCIDENT TO THOSE ORDERS YOU WERE PAID $308.97 FOR TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS AND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE OF$105. THE AMOUNT PAID FOR TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS WAS BASED ON 3. THUS INDICATING THAT YOUR DEPENDENTS WERE IN NEWPORT WHEN THE ORDERS OF JANUARY 8. WERE ISSUED AND THAT THE TRAVEL FROM CORONADO TO NEWPORT WAS NOT PERFORMED WHEN CLAIMED NOR INCIDENT TO THOSE ORDERS. TOOK EXCEPTION TO THE PAYMENT AND THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE SUM OF $413.97 IS BEING COLLECTED FROM YOU BY CHECK AGE AGAINST YOUR PAY ACCOUNT.
B-158085, JAN. 4, 1966
TO JOE M. WILLIAMS, BM2, 983 22 68, USN:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 10, 1965, REQUESTING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE SETTLEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1965, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS FROM CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, TO NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND, AND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE.
BY ORDERS NO. P-46-63, DATED JANUARY 8, 1963, YOU WERE TRANSFERRED FROM THE U.S.S. LEXINGTON (CVS-16) AT PENSACOLA, FLORIDA, TO THE U.S.S. LAKE CHAMPLAIN (CVS-39), HOME PORT QUONSET POINT, RHODE ISLAND, FOR DUTY. YOU WERE DETACHED FROM THE FIRST VESSEL ON JANUARY 13, 1963, AND REPORTED ABOARD THE SECOND ON FEBRUARY 2, 1963. UPON REPORTING ABOARD THE U.S.S. LAKE CHAMPLAIN YOU SUBMITTED A CLAIM FOR TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS (WIFE AND DAUGHTER) STATING THAT THEY TRAVELED FROM CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, TO NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND, JANUARY 6 AND 7, 1963, INCIDENT TO THOSE ORDERS. ON THE BASIS OF YOUR STATEMENT THAT THE TRAVEL BETWEEN THOSE POINTS HAD BEEN PERFORMED AT THAT TIME INCIDENT TO THOSE ORDERS YOU WERE PAID $308.97 FOR TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS AND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE OF$105, A TOTAL OF $413.97. THE AMOUNT PAID FOR TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS WAS BASED ON 3,433 MILES AT 9 CENTS PER MILE (6 CENTS PER MILE FOR YOUR WIFE AND 3 CENTS PER MILE FOR A CHILD OVER 5 YEARS OF AGE BUT LESS THAN 12 YEARS OF AGE) PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH M7003-2 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW ANY AMOUNT FOR CHILDREN UNDER 5 YEARS OF AGE.
HOWEVER, AN EXAMINATION OF ALLOTMENT CHECKS PAYABLE TO YOUR WIFE FOR OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, AND DECEMBER 1962, REVEALED THAT THEY HAD BEEN NEGOTIATED IN NEWPORT ON NOVEMBER 1, 1962, DECEMBER 3, 1962, AND JANUARY 3, 1963, RESPECTIVELY, THUS INDICATING THAT YOUR DEPENDENTS WERE IN NEWPORT WHEN THE ORDERS OF JANUARY 8, 1963, WERE ISSUED AND THAT THE TRAVEL FROM CORONADO TO NEWPORT WAS NOT PERFORMED WHEN CLAIMED NOR INCIDENT TO THOSE ORDERS. THEREFORE, UPON AUDIT OF THE DISBURSING OFFICER'S ACCOUNTS OUR OFFICE ON APRIL 8, 1964, TOOK EXCEPTION TO THE PAYMENT AND THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE SUM OF $413.97 IS BEING COLLECTED FROM YOU BY CHECK AGE AGAINST YOUR PAY ACCOUNT.
ON OCTOBER 9, 1964, YOU FILED A SECOND CLAIM FOR TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, TO NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND, AND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE, STATING THAT THE TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED AUGUST 6 TO 9, 1962. YOU CONTEND THAT THE TRAVEL ACTUALLY WAS PERFORMED AT THAT TIME INCIDENT TO A CHANGE IN THE HOME PORT OF THE U.S.S. LEXINGTON FROM SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, TO PENSACOLA, FLORIDA, EFFECTIVE MAY 15, 1962. SUPPORT OF YOUR CONTENTION, YOU SUBMITTED A SWORN STATEMENT BY CATHERINE HOPKINS STATING THAT HER DAUGHTER MARJORIE WILLIAMS AND GRANDDAUGHTER DONNA WILLIAMS LIVED WITH HER AT HER HOUSE IN NEWPORT FROM AUGUST 9, 1962, TO JANUARY 31, 1963. UNDER THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AND REGULATIONS ANY ENTITLEMENT TO DEPENDENT TRAVEL INCIDENT TO THAT CHANGE IN HOME PORT WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE DISTANCE FROM SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, TO PENSACOLA, FLORIDA, PLUS A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE. SINCE YOUR DAUGHTER WAS LESS THAN 5 YEARS OF AGE AT THAT TIME, YOUR SECOND CLAIM (NAVCOMPT FORM 2023) SHOWS THAT YOU CLAIMED $188.16 (3,136 MILES AT 6 CENTS PER MILE WHICH IS GREATER THAN THE ACTUAL MILEAGE BETWEEN SAN DIEGO AND PENSACOLA) PLUS $105 DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE, OR A TOTAL OF $293.16. IF THAT IS A CORRECT STATEMENT OF DEPENDENTS' TRAVEL AS NOW CONTENDED BY YOU, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM ON WHICH PAYMENT WAS MADE WAS FOR MORE THAN WAS ACTUALLY DUE. WHILE YOU NOW CONTEND THAT THIS WAS AN ERROR DUE TO UNFAMILIARITY WITH THE FORM ON WHICH THE CLAIM WAS MADE, THE DISCREPANCY IS SUCH THAT YOUR CLAIM MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS MERELY ERRONEOUS.
CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES MUST BE BASED ON TRUE FACTS, AND IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE CLAIMANT TO FURNISH EVIDENCE SATISFACTORILY ESTABLISHING THE CLEAR LIABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES TO PAY THE CLAIMS. WHERE A CLAIM IS OF DOUBTFUL VALIDITY IT IS THE PRACTICE OF THIS OFFICE TO DENY PAYMENT AND LEAVE THE CLAIMANT TO HIS REMEDY IN THE COURTS UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF LONGWILL V. UNITED STATES, 17 CT.CL. 288, AND CHARLES V. UNITED STATES, 19 CT.CL. 316. A CLAIM IN THE FORM OF A RECLAIM FOR ANY OR ALL THE AMOUNT RECOUPED BECAUSE OF AN ERRONEOUS PAYMENT ON ANY VOUCHER ITEM RESULTING FROM A MISREPRESENTATION OF FACT IS VIEWED AS A MATTER WHICH SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOR FINAL RESOLUTION EVEN THOUGH THE RECLAIM INVOLVES NO APPARENT FRAUD OR MISREPRESENTATION. COMPARE KAMEN SOAP PRODUCTS, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 129 CT.CL. 619. SEE DECISION OF NOVEMBER 3, 1961, B-146638, 41 COMP. GEN. 285, COPY ENCLOSED.
ACCORDINGLY, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT THE SETTLEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1965, DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM FOR TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS AND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE IS SUSTAINED.