Skip to Highlights
Highlights

USAR: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 7. THE AMOUNT CLAIMED REPRESENTS THE AMOUNT WHICH YOU STATE THE MILWAUKEE RAILROAD WOULD HAVE REFUNDED TO YOU HAD YOUR EFFECTS MOVED FROM CHICAGO TO SEATTLE OVER THAT LINE UPON YOUR RELIEF FROM ACTIVE DUTY. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED JUNE 5. UPON REVIEW SUCH ACTION WAS SUSTAINED BY DECISION OF JULY 18. IN WHICH YOU WERE ADVISED THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION TO SHIP YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS INCIDENT TO YOUR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY WAS LIMITED NOT TO EXCEED THE COST FROM YOUR LAST STATION. THERE WAS NO AUTHORITY TO INCREASE THE GOVERNMENT'S LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE SHIPMENT OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS. THE RECORD DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS ANY ERROR ON THE PART OF AN AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE SHIPMENT OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS.

View Decision

B-136611, NOV. 19, 1959

TO LIEUTENANT COLONEL HOWARD H. HAWKEN, USAR:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 7, 1959, RELATIVE TO YOUR CLAIM FOR $641.70 IN CONNECTION WITH THE SHIPMENT OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS FROM CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, TO SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. THE AMOUNT CLAIMED REPRESENTS THE AMOUNT WHICH YOU STATE THE MILWAUKEE RAILROAD WOULD HAVE REFUNDED TO YOU HAD YOUR EFFECTS MOVED FROM CHICAGO TO SEATTLE OVER THAT LINE UPON YOUR RELIEF FROM ACTIVE DUTY.

YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED JUNE 5, 1958, AND UPON REVIEW SUCH ACTION WAS SUSTAINED BY DECISION OF JULY 18, 1958, B 136611, IN WHICH YOU WERE ADVISED THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION TO SHIP YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS INCIDENT TO YOUR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY WAS LIMITED NOT TO EXCEED THE COST FROM YOUR LAST STATION, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, TO YOUR HOME OF RECORD, HUNTINGTON WOODS, MICHIGAN; AND THAT WHILE THE BILL OF LADING, ISSUED IN REASONABLE CONFORMITY WITH YOUR WRITTEN APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL ROUTING, DID NOT ACCOMPLISH THE DESIRED RESULT OF SHIPMENT VIA THE MILWAUKEE RAILROAD, THERE WAS NO AUTHORITY TO INCREASE THE GOVERNMENT'S LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE SHIPMENT OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS. IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU STATE YOU USED THE ONLY CONVENIENT MEANS AVAILABLE TO GIVE INSTRUCTIONS IN WRITING AS TO THE DESIRED ROUTING; THAT YOU DID NOT MAKE A MISTAKE, AND DO NOT FEEL OBLIGATED TO STAND THE EXPENSE INCURRED.

THE RECORD DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS ANY ERROR ON THE PART OF AN AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE SHIPMENT OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS. HOWEVER, EVEN IF SUCH WERE THE CASE, IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A STATUTE SO PROVIDING, THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE RESULTING FROM NEGLIGENT ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF DUTY OF OFFICERS OR AGENTS EMPLOYED IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE. SEE ROBERTSON V. SICHEL, 127 U.S. 507, 515, AND CASES THERE CITED.

SINCE YOUR LETTER FURNISHES NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL INFORMATION NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED, IT AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR MODIFICATION OF THE PRIOR ACTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE DECISION OF JULY 18, 1958, IS AFFIRMED.

GAO Contacts