B-134557, APR. 8, 1958
Highlights
THE ACTUAL UNPACKING WAS DONE BY YOUR SON. THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FROM THE NAVAL AIR STATION AT QUONSET POINT WAS SUPPLIED OUR OFFICE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT. "THIS ACTIVITY IS UNABLE TO DETERMINE AT THIS TIME THE EXACT WEIGHT OF THE GOODS UNPACKED AS SOME ITEMS NOT INTENDED FOR CURRENT USE WERE PLACED IN A GARAGE AT THE RESIDENCE AND THE CONTRACTOR BILLED FOR DELIVERY AND UNPACKING OF THE COMPLETE SHIPMENT OF 14. "EVIDENCE OF UNPACKING OF CONTAINERS IS INDICATED BY REMARKS ON INVENTORY RELATIVE TO DAMAGED GOODS INSIDE CONTAINERS.'. THE EVIDENCE TENDS TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT SOME PORTION OF YOUR GOODS WERE UNPACKED OR PLACED UNDER YOUR SON'S DIRECTION. SINCE IT CANNOT NOW BE DETERMINED WHAT PART OF YOUR GOODS WERE NOT UNPACKED NOR WHAT PART.
B-134557, APR. 8, 1958
TO MR. FRANKLIN O. ROSE, HYDRAULIC AND SANITARY LABORATORY, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN:
THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTERS OF NOVEMBER 12, 1957, AND FEBRUARY 27, 1958, REQUESTING REVIEW OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION SETTLEMENT OF NOVEMBER 4, 1957, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND OF $93 PAID TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY INCIDENT TO THE SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS FROM SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO, TO PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND.
YOU CONTEND THAT THE $93 SHOULD BE REFUNDED BECAUSE IT REPRESENTS CHARGES BY THE PAUL ARPIN VAN LINES, INC. FOR UNPACKING YOUR EFFECTS WHEN IN FACT, THE ACTUAL UNPACKING WAS DONE BY YOUR SON. WITH REGARD TO THE $93 INVOLVED, THIS AMOUNT INCLUDED DRAYAGE AS WELL AS THE UNPACKING AND UNCRATING OF THE 14,950 POUNDS.
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FROM THE NAVAL AIR STATION AT QUONSET POINT WAS SUPPLIED OUR OFFICE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT.
"THIS ACTIVITY IS UNABLE TO DETERMINE AT THIS TIME THE EXACT WEIGHT OF THE GOODS UNPACKED AS SOME ITEMS NOT INTENDED FOR CURRENT USE WERE PLACED IN A GARAGE AT THE RESIDENCE AND THE CONTRACTOR BILLED FOR DELIVERY AND UNPACKING OF THE COMPLETE SHIPMENT OF 14,950 POUNDS.
"EVIDENCE OF UNPACKING OF CONTAINERS IS INDICATED BY REMARKS ON INVENTORY RELATIVE TO DAMAGED GOODS INSIDE CONTAINERS.'
WHILE IT MAY BE THAT THE VAN COMPANY DID NOT UNPACK ALL OF YOUR GOODS, THE EVIDENCE TENDS TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT SOME PORTION OF YOUR GOODS WERE UNPACKED OR PLACED UNDER YOUR SON'S DIRECTION. SINCE IT CANNOT NOW BE DETERMINED WHAT PART OF YOUR GOODS WERE NOT UNPACKED NOR WHAT PART, IF ANY, OF THE CHARGE OF $93 SHOULD BE APPORTIONED TO UNPACKING, WE CANNOT ON THE PRESENT RECORD DETERMINE WHETHER YOU ARE ENTITLED TO ANY PART OF THE AMOUNT CLAIMED.
GENERALLY, WHERE THE FACTS AS ADMINISTRATIVELY REPORTED DIFFER FROM THE FACTS REPORTED BY A CLAIMANT THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE ACCEPTS THOSE ESTABLISHED BY THE OFFICIAL RECORD, IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF THE CORRECTNESS THEREOF.
ACCORDINGLY, OUR PREVIOUS DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM MUST BE SUSTAINED.