B-166184, MAY 19, 1969

B-166184, MAY 19, 1969

TO JAMES E. BENNETT, DC2, USN:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 27, 1969, REQUESTING REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT OF JANUARY 9, 1969, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL FROM INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, TO OLONGAPO CITY, PHILIPPINES, JANUARY 15 TO FEBRUARY 7,1968, AND PAYMENT OF A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE.

ON NOVEMBER 7, 1967, YOU WERE TRANSFERRED FROM YOUR PERMANENT STATION, U.S. NAVAL STATION, SUBIC BAY, PHILIPPINES, TO U.S. NAVAL STATION, TREASURE ISLAND, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEPARATION FROM THE SERVICE. ON NOVEMBER 20, 1967, YOU WERE DISCHARGED AT TREASURE ISLAND AT EXPIRATION OF ENLISTMENT AND ELECTED TO RECEIVE MILEAGE TO INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, HOME OF RECORD. ON NOVEMBER 21, 1967, YOU REENLISTED AT TREASURE ISLAND FOR 6 YEARS.

BY ORDER NO. 0110-68, ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 1, 1968, BY U.S. NAVAL STATION, TREASURE ISLAND, YOU WERE ASSIGNED TO U.S. NAVAL AIR STATION, CUBI POINT, PHILIPPINES, FOR DUTY. YOU REPORTED THERE ON MARCH 13, 1968, AND ON MARCH 15, 1968, YOU PRESENTED A CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL OF DEPENDENT (WIFE) AND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE, STATING THAT YOUR WIFE TRAVELED FROM INDIANAPOLIS TO OLONGAPO CITY VIA SAN FRANCISCO AND MANILA. YOU MENTIONED IN THE CLAIM THAT YOU HAD ANOTHER DEPENDENT, AN INFANT BORN OCTOBER 27, 1967, WHO REMAINED IN OLONGAPO WHEN YOU AND YOUR WIFE TRAVELED TO THE UNITED STATES.

IN A STATEMENT ACCOMPANYING THE CLAIM YOU SAID THAT WHILE STATIONED AT SUBIC BAY PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF YOUR ENLISTMENT YOU SUBMITTED A REQUEST FOR A SECOND TOUR OF DUTY IN THE HILIPPINES; THAT YOUR WIFE ACCOMPANIED YOU TO TREASURE ISLAND AND THAT YOU SENT HER ON TO INDIANAPOLIS, YOUR HOME OF RECORD. YOU SAID YOU INFORMED A CAREER COUNSELOR AT TREASURE ISLAND YOU WOULD SHIP OVER IF GIVEN SHORE DUTY IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND THAT ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 12, 1967, YOU WERE INFORMED YOU WOULD BE SENT BACK TO SUBIC BAY FOR DUTY WITH THE AFDM5.

WHEN ORDERS DID NOT ARRIVE BY MID-DECEMBER YOU SAY YOU WENT ON LEAVE AND WHEN YOU RETURNED YOU WERE INFORMED YOUR ORDERS WOULD BE TO CUBI POINT AND THAT YOUR WIFE COULD TRAVEL WITH YOU IF GOVERNMENT APPROVED HOUSING WAS AVAILABLE. YOU FURTHER SAID YOU MOVED YOUR WIFE FROM INDIANAPOLIS TO SAN FRANCISCO BELIEVING SHE WOULD BE AUTHORIZED TO TRAVEL BACK TO THE PHILIPPINES WITH YOU BUT WERE NOTIFIED AT THAT TIME THAT HER TRAVEL COULD NOT BE AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE BECAUSE GOVERNMENT QUARTERS WERE NOT AVAILABLE. YOUR CLAIM WAS DENIED BY THE NAVY AND WAS DISALLOWED BY THE SETTLEMENT MENTIONED ABOVE FOR THE REASONS STATED.

IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU CONTEND THAT ALTHOUGH YOU HAD REQUESTED AN EXTENSION OF DUTY WHILE AT SUBIC BAY, THAT REQUEST WAS DISAPPROVED AND YOU THEN DECIDED TO LEAVE THE NAVY PERMANENTLY AND, THEREFORE, YOUR WIFE TRAVELED WITH YOU TO THE UNITED STATES FOR SEPARATION. YOU SAY THAT WHILE AWAITING SEPARATION PROCESSING AT TREASURE ISLAND YOU WERE APPROACHED BY A CAREER COUNSELOR WHO TOLD YOU THAT AS A REENLISTMENT INCENTIVE YOU PROBABLY COULD AGAIN BE STATIONED IN THE PHILIPPINES, THAT YOU DISCUSSED THIS WITH YOUR WIFE AND CHANGED YOUR MIND AND DECIDED TO REENLIST.

ALSO, YOU RELATE THAT AFTER YOU RECEIVED REENLISTMENT PAY YOU WERE GRANTED 30 DAYS' REENLISTMENT LEAVE AND ACCOMPANIED YOUR WIFE TO INDIANAPOLIS BUT BEFORE GOING ON LEAVE YOU APPLIED FOR CONCURRENT TRAVEL TO THE PHILIPPINES. YOU SAY YOU HAD BEEN ASSURED YOUR WIFE COULD RETURN TO THE PHILIPPINES AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE AS YOU ALREADY HAD GOVERNMENT APPROVED HOUSING SINCE YOUR WIFE'S FAMILY (AND PRESUMABLY, YOUR INFANT DAUGHTER) WERE STILL LIVING IN YOUR HOUSE IN OLONGAPO CITY, AND YOUR WIFE, BEING A PHILIPPINE NATIONAL, HAD A VISA AND PASSPORT.

YOU FURTHER SAY THAT AFTER YOU LEARNED YOUR REQUEST FOR CONCURRENT TRAVEL HAD BEEN DISAPPROVED YOU WERE ADVISED YOU WOULD BE REIMBURSED FOR YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL AFTER YOU REACHED YOUR STATION IN THE PHILIPPINES. SUMMARY, YOU CONTEND THAT YOU WOULD NOT HAVE REENLISTED EXCEPT FOR THE ASSURANCE THAT YOUR WIFE COULD RETURN TO THE PHILIPPINES AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE.

IN ADDITION, YOU SAY YOU WERE INFORMED THAT YOU WERE ENTITLED TO BE PAID FOR TRAVEL BY YOU AND YOUR WIFE FROM PLACE OF SEPARATION TO YOUR HOME OF RECORD AND THAT YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED PAYMENT FOR EITHER YOUR MILEAGE OR YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL BETWEEN THOSE POINTS. WHILE AN ALLOWANCE FOR TRAVEL BY YOU AND YOUR WIFE BETWEEN THOSE POINTS WAS NOT INCLUDED IN YOUR CLAIM, THE MATTER WILL BE DISCUSSED BELOW.

TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS, AND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE, ARE GOVERNED BY THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE SECRETARIES PURSUANT TO 37 U.C. CODE 404, 406 AND 407.

PARAGRAPH M4157-2 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT A MEMBER WHO IS SEPARATED FROM THE SERVICE OR RELIEVED FROM ACTIVE DUTY BY REASON OF EXPIRATION OF ENLISTMENT AND WHO, ON THE FOLLOWING DAY, RE-ENTERS THE SERVICE AT THE STATION AT WHICH SEPARATED OR RELIEVED FROM ACTIVE DUTY IS ENTITLED TO MILEAGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBPARAGRAPH 1.

SUBPARAGRAPH 1A, PROVIDES THAT FOR TRAVEL IN THE UNITED STATES A MEMBER SO SEPARATED WILL BE ENTITLED TO MILEAGE FROM HIS STATION TO HIS HOME OF RECORD OR THE PLACE FROM WHICH ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY AS HE MAY ELECT AND MAY RECEIVE SUCH ALLOWANCE AT TIME OF SEPARATION WITHOUT REGARD TO ACTUAL PERFORMANCE OF TRAVEL. AS STATED ABOVE, THE RECORD SHOWS YOU ELECTED TO RECEIVE MILEAGE TO INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, HOME OF RECORD.

PARAGRAPH M7009 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT A MEMBER WHO IS SEPARATED FROM THE SERVICE OR RELIEVED FROM ACTIVE DUTY BY REASON OF EXPIRATION OF ENLISTMENT AND WHO, ON THE FOLLOWING DAY, RE-ENTERS THE SERVICE AT THE STATION AT WHICH SEPARATED OR RELIEVED FROM ACTIVE DUTY, WITH NO CHANGE OF PERMANENT STATION, IS NOT ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.

WHILE IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN YOUR INTENTION TO REENLIST WHEN YOU REACHED TREASURE ISLAND, THE RECORD SHOWS YOU WERE DISCHARGED AT EXPIRATION OF ENLISTMENT AND REENLISTED THE NEXT DAY AT THE STATION WHERE SEPARATED. ALTHOUGH YOUR OLD STATION WAS AT SUBIC BAY AND THE NEW IS AT CUBI POINT, THESE STATIONS ARE IN THE SAME AREA AND NO TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS WAS REQUIRED BY REASON OF YOUR DISCHARGE, REENLISTMENT AND CHANGE IN ASSIGNMENT.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE RECORD SHOWS YOUR WIFE RESIDED IN OLONGAPO CITY WHEN YOU WERE STATIONED AT SUBIC BAY AND UPON YOUR RETURN TO THE PHILIPPINES FOR DUTY AT CUBIC POINT SHE RESUMED HER RESIDENCE AT THE SAME PLACE.

THEREFORE, THERE IS NO BASIS UNDER THE STATUTORY REGULATIONS ON WHICH YOU MAY BE REIMBURSED FOR ANY PART OF YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL, AND ANY ERRONEOUS ADVICE YOU MAY HAVE BEEN FURNISHED IN THIS RESPECT BY NAVAL PERSONNEL AT TREASURE ISLAND WOULD NOT AFFORD A BASIS FOR PAYMENT OF YOUR CLAIM OR FOR HER TRAVEL FROM TREASURE ISLAND TO INDIANAPOLIS. AND IT IS APPARENT FROM YOUR LETTERS THAT HER TRAVEL TO INDIANAPOLIS WAS ONLY FOR A VISIT AND THAT IT COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A RESIDENCE AS REQUIRED BY THE REGULATIONS IN AN OTHERWISE PROPER CASE.

PARAGRAPH M9000 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE IS TO PARTIALLY REIMBURSE A MEMBER FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELOCATING HIS HOUSEHOLD UPON A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION. PARAGRAPH M9004-3 OF THE SAME REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT THE ALLOWANCE IS NOT PAYABLE IN CONNECTION WITH TRAVEL FROM LAST STATION IN ONE PERIOD OF SERVICE TO FIRST DUTY STATION IN ANOTHER PERIOD OF SERVICE WHEN THERE WAS NO ORDERED PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION BETWEEN THOSE STATIONS.

IN YOUR CASE THERE WAS NO ORDERED PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FROM SUBIC BAY TO CUBI POINT AND AS FAR AS THE RECORD SHOWS YOU DID NOT RELOCATE YOUR HOUSEHOLD INCIDENT TO YOUR CHANGE IN ASSIGNMENT, IT APPEARING THAT YOUR WIFE CONTINUED TO RESIDE IN OLONGAPO CITY AFTER HER TRIP TO THE UNITED STATES. THEREFORE, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE IN CONNECTION WITH TRAVEL FROM YOUR OLD STATION FOR DISCHARGE OR TO YOUR NEW STATION UPON REENLISTMENT. 36 COMP. GEN. 71; 38 COMP. GEN. 405.

ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF JANUARY 9, 1969, WAS CORRECT AND IS SUSTAINED, AND YOUR PRESENT CLAIM FOR YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL FROM TREASURE ISLAND, CALIFORNIA, TO INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, IS DISALLOWED.

WITH RESPECT TO MILEAGE FOR YOUR TRAVEL FROM TREASURE ISLAND TO INDIANAPOLIS, THE PAPERS TRANSMITTED TO THIS OFFICE DO NOT REFLECT WHETHER SUCH MILEAGE WAS PAID. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT YOU TAKE THIS UP WITH THE DISBURSING OFFICER HAVING CUSTODY OF YOUR PAY RECORDS AND IF SUCH MATTER IS NOT SATISFACTORILY ADJUSTED YOU MAY FILE A CLAIM WITH THIS OFFICE THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE CHANNELS.