B-163747, MAY 5, 1969
Highlights
RA 20453801: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 27. YOU WERE REASSIGNED FROM THAT STATION TO U.S. YOU WERE PLACED IN AN ATTACHED STATUS. YOU CLAIM FAMILY SEPARATION ALLOWANCE UNDER 37 U.S.C. 427 (B) ON THE BASIS THAT YOU WERE DENIED TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS TO FORT BENNING. SINCE YOUR ORDERS DID NOT SHOW AN EDCSA DATE AND THAT YOU WERE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FAMILY HOUSING WHILE IN AN ATTACHED STATUS. COULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THAT THE EDCSA DATE MUST BE PRIOR TO THE ORDERED REPORTING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 15. IT WAS NOT UNTIL APRIL 14. THAT WE WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN A REPLY TO OUR LETTERS AND OUR DELAY IN DISPOSING OF YOUR CLAIM RESULTED FROM THAT FACT.
B-163747, MAY 5, 1969
TO SPECIALIST FIRST CLASS OLIVER D. BLAKE, RA 20453801:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 27, 1968, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF SETTLEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 20, 1968, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR THE $30 MONTHLY FAMILY SEPARATION ALLOWANCE AUTHORIZED BY 37 U.S.C. 427 (B).
BY ORDERS DATED JULY 29, 1966, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY CARROLL DEPOT, APO SAN FRANCISCO 96460, YOU WERE REASSIGNED FROM THAT STATION TO U.S. ARMY INFANTRY SCHOOL (3151) FORT BENNING, GEORGIA 31905, WITH A REPORTING DATE NOT LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 15, 1966. THE ORDERS STATED THAT THE EXPECTED CHANGE OF STRENGTH ACCOUNTABILITY (EDCSA) WOULD BE ESTABLISHED UPON RECEIPT OF PORT CALL.
YOU ARRIVED AT FORT BENNING, GEORGIA, ON SEPTEMBER 14, 1966. SINCE YOUR ORDERS DID NOT SHOW AN EDCSA DATE, YOU WERE PLACED IN AN ATTACHED STATUS, PENDING RECEIPT OF ORDERS ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF CHANGE IN STRENGTH ACCOUNTABILITY.
ORDERS DATED JANUARY 6, 1967, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY INFANTRY CENTER, FORT BENNING, GEORGIA 31905, AUTHORIZED YOUR PERMISSIVE REASSIGNMENT TO FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA.
YOU CLAIM FAMILY SEPARATION ALLOWANCE UNDER 37 U.S.C. 427 (B) ON THE BASIS THAT YOU WERE DENIED TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS TO FORT BENNING, GEORGIA, SINCE YOUR ORDERS DID NOT SHOW AN EDCSA DATE AND THAT YOU WERE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FAMILY HOUSING WHILE IN AN ATTACHED STATUS.
BY OFFICE LETTERS DATED APRIL 17, 1968, AND MARCH 11, 1969, WE REQUESTED THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY TO FURNISH US AN EXPLANATION AS TO THE REASONS WHY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED THE AUTHORITIES AT FORT BENNING, GEORGIA, COULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THAT THE EDCSA DATE MUST BE PRIOR TO THE ORDERED REPORTING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1966. WE ALSO ASKED WHY THE ABSENCE OF AN EDCSA DATE SHOULD BE VIEWED AS OPERATING TO DENY YOU ENTITLEMENT TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS UNDER AN OTHERWISE PROPER CHANGE OF STATION ORDER. IN ADDITION WE REQUESTED A COPY OF YOUR REQUEST FOR PERMISSIVE TRANSFER TO FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA.
IT WAS NOT UNTIL APRIL 14, 1969, THAT WE WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN A REPLY TO OUR LETTERS AND OUR DELAY IN DISPOSING OF YOUR CLAIM RESULTED FROM THAT FACT. THE DELAY IS REGRETTED.
IN LETTER DATED APRIL 14, 1969, THE COMPTROLLER OF THE ARMY, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, STATED THAT A REVIEW OF THE RECORD NOW AVAILABLE AND PERTINENT REGULATIONS REVEALS NO BASIS FOR NOT AUTHORIZING THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS TO FORT BENNING. FURTHER, IT IS STATED THAT THE LACK OF AN EDCSA IN THE PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD ANY EFFECT ON THE OTHERWISE COMPLETELY VALID ORDER. ALSO, IT IS STATED THAT THE CURRENT AUTHORITIES AT FORT BENNING (TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING) ADVISE THAT THE LACK OF AN EDCSA IN AN ORDER, AS IN YOUR CASE, DOES NOT AFFECT THE ENTITLEMENTS TO TRANSPORTATION.
IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR REQUEST, THE COMPTROLLER OF THE ARMY ENCLOSED A COPY OF YOUR REQUEST FOR PERMISSIVE TRANSFER TO FORT BRAGG. THE REQUEST DATED OCTOBER 14, 1966, SHORTLY AFTER YOU ARRIVED THERE, IS IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:
"1. UP OF AR 614-6, REQUEST THAT I BE GRANTED A PERMISSIVE REASSIGNMENT TO FORT BRAGG, N.C.
"2. THIS REQUEST IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
A. MY YOUNGEST DAUGHTER, AGE 12 YEARS, IS IN NEED OF SPECIAL EDUCATION.
B. SHE HAS BEEN RETAINED ON THREE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS SINCE SHE STARTED HER EDUCATION IN 1959. A MENTAL TEST GIVEN HER RECENTLY REVEALED THE NEED OF SPECIAL EDUCATION IN ORDER TO BRING HER EDUCATION UP TO THE STANDARDS OF HER PRESENT AGE GROUP.
C. I OWN MY OWN HOME IN FAYETTEVILLE, N.C., WHERE SUCH A SCHOOL IS AVAILABLE. TO MOVE MY FAMILY TO FORT BENNING, GEORGIA WOULD CAUSE AN ADDITIONAL HARDSHIP ON MY DAUGHTER PLUS APPROXIMATELY $3,000.00 FINANCIAL LOSS TO ME ON THE SALE OF MY HOME. THIS I CANNOT AFFORD, IFI HOPE TO GET HER ENROLLED IN A SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM, WHICH WOULD COST APPROXIMATELY $30.00 PER MONTH.
CLAUSE (1) OF 37 U.S.C. 427 (B) PROVIDES FOR PAYMENT OF FAMILY SEPARATION ALLOWANCE ONLY IF TRANSPORTATION OF A MEMBER'S DEPENDENTS TO HIS STATION OR A PLACE NEAR HIS STATION IS NOT AUTHORIZED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE.
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT YOU REQUESTED TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS TO FORT BENNING AND THAT SUCH REQUEST WAS DENIED. AND, WHILE WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO OBTAIN ANY DEFINITE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ADVICE WHICH YOU SAY YOU RECEIVED THAT YOU WERE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FAMILY HOUSING AT FORT BENNING UNTIL AN EDCSA DATE WAS ESTABLISHED, ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSIGNMENT OF QUARTERS IS NOT MATERIAL TO ENTITLEMENT TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS UNDER CHANGE OF PERMANENT STATION ORDERS IN OTHERWISE PROPER CASES.
IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AND SINCE IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT YOU DID NOT WISH TO MOVE YOUR FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS FROM FORT BRAGG TO FORT BENNING BECAUSE OF THE SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF YOUR DAUGHTER WHICH COULD BE MET IN FAYETTEVILLE AND THE MONETARY LOSS WHICH YOU WOULD HAVE SUFFERED INCIDENT TO THE MOVE, WE MAY NOT CONCLUDE THAT SUCH MOVEMENT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE SO AS TO ENTITLE YOU TO PAYMENT OF FAMILY SEPARATION ALLOWANCE UNDER 37 U.S.C. 427 (B) (1).