B-161800, SEP. 1, 1967

B-161800, SEP. 1, 1967

TRANSPORTATION - DEPENDENTS - MILITARY PERSONNEL - OTHER THAN FROM OLD STATION DECISION TO MARINE CORPS OFFICER REVIEWING CLAIM FOR TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS. MARINE CORPS OFFICER WHOSE DEPENDENTS INCIDENT TO TRANSFER FROM FORT GORDON TO CANAL ZONE TRAVELED FROM AUGUSTA, GA. TO HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS, AND SUBSEQUENTLY TRAVELED WITH MEMBER TO CANAL ZONE UNDER ORDERS AUTHORIZING CONCURRENT TRAVEL MAY NOT HAVE AMOUNT REPRESENTING COST OF TRANSPORTATION FROM HOT SPRINGS RATHER THAN FROM OLD STATION (FORT CLAYTON) ALLOWED SINCE UNDER ORDERS AUTHORIZING DEPENDENTS TO ACCOMPANY MEMBER OVERSEAS THE TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS IN THE CONTINENTAL U.S. IS LIMITED TO TRAVEL FROM OLD STATION TO PORT OF EMBARKATION.

TO LIEUTENANT COLONEL PAUL G. DAVIS, QMC:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 5, 1967, REQUESTING REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT OF MAY 26, 1967, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM AUGUSTA, GEORGIA, TO HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS, INCIDENT TO YOUR PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FROM FORT GORDON, GEORGIA, TO FORT CLAYTON, CANAL ZONE.

YOU WERE RELEASED FROM ASSIGNMENT AND DUTY AT FORT GORDON, GEORGIA, AND ASSIGNED TO FORT CLAYTON, CANAL ZONE, BY PARAGRAPH 149, SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 83, ISSUED ON APRIL 22, 1966, BY HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, WASHINGTON, D.C. THE ORDERS AUTHORIZED 30 DAYS' DELAY, CHARGEABLE AS LEAVE, STATED THAT THE AVAILABLE DATE (FOR TRANSPORTATION) WAS AUGUST 30, 1966, AND THAT YOU WERE TO ARRIVE AT YOUR OVERSEAS STATION NOT LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 9, 1966. THE ORDERS DID NOT AUTHORIZE CONCURRENT TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS TO YOUR NEW STATION AND YOUR DEPENDENTS TRAVELED FROM AUGUSTA, GEORGIA, TO HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS, JUNE 4 AND 5, 1966.

THE RECORD INDICATES THAT ON JULY 8, 1966, YOU RECEIVED VERBAL INFORMATION THAT YOUR FAMILY WOULD ACCOMPANY YOU TO THE CANAL ZONE. ORDERS ISSUED AT FORT GORDON, ON JULY 22, 1966, YOUR DEPENDENTS WERE AUTHORIZED CONCURRENT TRAVEL FROM HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS, TO FORT CLAYTON, CANAL ZONE, AND TRAVELED WITH YOU TO YOUR NEW STATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE, SUCH TRANSPORTATION BEING FURNISHED FROM HOTSPRINGS. SUBSEQUENTLY, YOU WERE ADVISED THAT YOU WERE INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES IN THE SUM OF $145.48 FOR THE REASON THAT YOU WERE ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM YOUR OLD STATION (FORT GORDON) TO YOUR NEW STATION (FORT CLAYTON) AND NOT FROM HOT SPRINGS.

YOU PROTESTED THAT ACTION AND PRESENTED A CLAIM FOR TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM AUGUSTA TO HOT SPRINGS. IN A LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 13, 1966, ADDRESSED TO THE ARMY FINANCE CENTER, AND IN 2ND ENDORSEMENT DATED OCTOBER 31, 1966, YOU STATED THAT YOU DID NOT APPLY FOR CONCURRENT TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS. YOU STATED FURTHER THAT SINCE CONCURRENT TRAVEL WAS NOT AUTHORIZED WHEN YOUR ORDERS WERE ISSUED YOUR DEPENDENTS MOVED TO HOT SPRINGS, THAT THE SUBSEQUENT AUTHORIZATION FOR THEIR CONCURRENT TRAVEL WAS FROM HOT SPRINGS AND THAT ALL YOUR ACTIONS WERE IN GOOD FAITH AND ACCOMPLISHED ON ARMY DIRECTION. SUCH LETTER AND ENDORSEMENT WERE FORWARDED HERE WITH YOUR CLAIM AND WERE CONSIDERED WHEN YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY THE SETTLEMENT MENTIONED ABOVE FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN. YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES SET FORTH IN THAT LETTER AND ENDORSEMENT AND THE ORDERS OF JULY 22, 1966.

THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE MOVEMENT OF DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMY TO, FROM, OR BETWEEN, OVERSEAS AREAS ARE PRESCRIBED BY ARMY REGULATION NO. 55-46, CITED IN THE DTAL LETTER OF JULY 22, 1966, AS AUTHORITY FOR THE CONCURRENT TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS. THE CANAL ZONE IS NOT A RESTRICTED AREA FOR PURPOSES OF TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS; HOWEVER, FOR PURPOSES OF CONCURRENT TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS, THE REGULATION DISTRIBUTES MEMBERS ASSIGNED TO THE CANAL ZONE INTO CATEGORIES 1 AND 2. CONCURRENT TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS IN CATEGORY 1 MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY THE HOME STATION COMMANDER. SUCH TRAVEL IN THE CASE OF MEMBERS IN CATEGORY 2, WHICH INCLUDES OFFICERS OF YOUR RANK, MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE OVERSEA COMMANDER CONCERNED.

THE REGULATION PROVIDES THAT WHEN CONCURRENT TRAVEL, CATEGORIES 1 AND 2, IS AUTHORIZED, OFFICERS (EXCEPT GENERAL OFFICERS), WILL BE REQUIRED TO ELECT WHETHER THEY WILL SERVE THE WITH DEPENDENTS TOUR OR THE ALL OTHERS (WITHOUT DEPENDENTS) TOUR. WHEN AN ELECTION IS MADE TO SERVE THE ALL OTHERS TOUR, THE REGULATION PROVIDES THAT THE MEMBERS' ORDERS WILL STATE THAT TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS TO THE OVERSEA AREA IS NOT AUTHORIZED. IF NO ELECTION IS MADE, THE MEMBER IS CONSIDERED TO BE SERVING THE WITH DEPENDENTS TOUR.

YOU SAY YOU DID NOT REQUEST CONCURRENT TRAVEL FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS. HOWEVER, YOU APPARENTLY DID NOT ELECT THE ALL OTHERS TOUR AND YOUR ORDERS OF APRIL 22, 1966, DO NOT PROVIDE THAT TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS TO YOUR OVERSEAS STATION IS NOT AUTHORIZED. PRESUMABLY, THEREFORE, WHEN THE OVERSEAS COMMAND RECEIVED YOUR ORDERS, IT ASSUMED, ON THE BASIS OF THE REGULATIONS, THAT YOU WERE SERVING THE ACCOMPANIED TOUR; AND, TIME PERMITTING AND QUARTERS BEING AVAILABLE FOR THEM, THE TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS WAS AUTHORIZED CONCURRENTLY WITH YOUR TRAVEL.

SECTION 406 OF TITLE 37, U.S. CODE, PROVIDES THAT MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES WHEN ORDERED TO MAKE A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION SHALL BE ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS TO AND FROM SUCH LOCATIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARIES CONCERNED. PARAGRAPH M7008-2A OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, CH. 154, NOVEMBER 1, 1965, PROVIDES THAT WHEN DEPENDENTS ARE AUTHORIZED TO AND DO TRAVEL AT THE SAME TIME THE MEMBER TRAVELS TO THE PERMANENT STATION OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES, WHETHER THEY TRAVEL TOGETHER OR SEPARATELY, THE MEMBER IS ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION FOR DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE FROM THE PLACE WHERE THE DEPENDENTS ARE LOCATED UPON THE MEMBER'S RECEIPT OF THE PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS NOT TO EXCEED ENTITLEMENT FROM THE OLD PERMANENT STATION TO THE NEW PERMANENT STATION.

THUS, WHEN MEMBERS ARE ORDERED OVERSEAS ON A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION AND THEIR DEPENDENTS ARE AUTHORIZED TO ACCOMPANY THEM, THE TRANSPORTATION FOR DEPENDENTS WITHIN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES TO WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED IS LIMITED TO TRAVEL FROM THE OLD STATION TO THE PORT OF EMBARKATION.

ALTHOUGH YOUR ORDERS OF APRIL 22, 1966, DID NOT AUTHORIZE CONCURRENT TRAVEL AND WHILE YOU MAY NOT HAVE REQUESTED CONCURRENT TRAVEL, SUCH TRAVEL WAS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE REGULATIONS AND AUTHORIZED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF YOUR ORDERS. UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE MAXIMUM TRANSPORTATION FOR DEPENDENTS AUTHORIZED BY THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS WAS FROM YOUR OLD TO YOUR NEW STATION. THEREFORE, YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM HOT SPRINGS TO FORT CLAYTON IN EXCESS OF THE COST FROM FORT GORDON TO FORT CLAYTON NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION OF JULY 22, 1966, WAS ADDRESSED TO YOUR DEPENDENTS AT HOT SPRING AND ERRONEOUSLY INDICATED THAT TRAVEL AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE WAS AUTHORIZED FROM THAT POINT TO OVERSEAS STATION.

UNDER THE REGULATIONS, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY FOR PAYMENT OF YOUR CLAIM FOR THEIR TRAVEL FROM AUGUSTA TO HOT SPRINGS IN ADDITION TO THE COST OF THEIR TRAVEL FROM FORT GORDON TO FORT CLAYTON.

ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF MAY 26, 1967, WAS CORRECT AND IS SUSTAINED.