Skip to Highlights
Highlights

SUZUKI: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 7. YOU WERE TRANSFERRED TO FORT LEWIS. YOU WERE TRANSFERRED TO FINANCE SCHOOL. YOU WERE DIRECTED TO PROCEED ON OR ABOUT FEBRUARY 11. YOUR CLAIM FOR PER DIEM AT THE RATE OF $1 PER DAY FOR THE INDICATED PERIOD WAS DISALLOWED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF NOVEMBER 22. FOR THE REASON THAT YOU WERE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE IN A TRAVEL STATUS AWAY FROM YOUR DESIGNATED POST OF DUTY. YOU STATE THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED INFORMATION TO THE EFFECT THAT OTHER ENLISTED MEMBERS WERE PAID PER DIEM FOR THE PERIODS WHILE THEY WERE ATTENDING SCHOOL AT FORT BENJAMIN HARRISON. PARAGRAPH 3050-1 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT MEMBERS ARE ENTITLED TO TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES ONLY WHILE ACTUALLY IN A TRAVEL STATUS.

View Decision

B-144829, MAR. 24, 1961

TO MR. ARTHUR M. SUZUKI:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 7, 1960, REQUESTING REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 22, 1960, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR PER DIEM WHILE AT FORT BENJAMIN HARRISON, INDIANA, DURING THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 10, 1956, TO FEBRUARY 10, 1957.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ON AUGUST 21, 1956, YOU ENLISTED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, AND THAT BY ORDERS DATED AUGUST 24, 1956, YOU WERE TRANSFERRED TO FORT LEWIS, WASHINGTON FOR BASIC TRAINING. BY ORDERS DATED OCTOBER 30, 1956, YOU WERE TRANSFERRED TO FINANCE SCHOOL, FORT BENJAMIN HARRISON, INDIANA, FOR TRAINING IN COURSE OF INSTRUCTION. YOU ARRIVED THERE ON NOVEMBER 9, 1956, AND COMPLETED YOUR ASSIGNMENT ON FEBRUARY 10, 1957. ORDERS DATED JANUARY 31, 1957, YOU WERE DIRECTED TO PROCEED ON OR ABOUT FEBRUARY 11, 1957, TO FORT LEWIS, WASHINGTON, FOR FURTHER TRANSPORTATION TO ARMY FORCES FAR EAST. YOUR CLAIM FOR PER DIEM AT THE RATE OF $1 PER DAY FOR THE INDICATED PERIOD WAS DISALLOWED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF NOVEMBER 22, 1960, FOR THE REASON THAT YOU WERE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE IN A TRAVEL STATUS AWAY FROM YOUR DESIGNATED POST OF DUTY.

IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER, YOU STATE THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED INFORMATION TO THE EFFECT THAT OTHER ENLISTED MEMBERS WERE PAID PER DIEM FOR THE PERIODS WHILE THEY WERE ATTENDING SCHOOL AT FORT BENJAMIN HARRISON. ON SUCH BASIS, YOU URGE THAT YOUR CLAIM SHOULD BE ALLOWED.

SECTION 303 (A) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, 63 STAT. 813, AS AMENDED, 37 U.S.C. 253, PROVIDES THAT UNDER REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARIES CONCERNED, MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED UNDER COMPETENT ORDERS UPON A CHANGE OF PERMANENT STATION, OR OTHERWISE, OR WHEN AWAY FROM THEIR DESIGNATED POSTS OF DUTY. PARAGRAPH 3050-1 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT MEMBERS ARE ENTITLED TO TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES ONLY WHILE ACTUALLY IN A TRAVEL STATUS, AND THAT THEY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE IN A TRAVEL STATUS WHILE PERFORMING TRAVEL "AWAY FROM THEIR PERMANENT DUTY STATION" UPON PUBLIC BUSINESS. PARAGRAPH 3003-2 OF THE SAME REGULATIONS DEFINES THE TERM "TEMPORARY DUTY" AS MEANING DUTY AT A LOCATION OTHER THAN THE PERMANENT STATION TO WHICH A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES IS ORDERED TO TEMPORARY DUTY UNDER ORDERS WHICH PROVIDE FOR FURTHER ASSIGNMENT TO A NEW PERMANENT STATION OR FOR RETURN TO THE OLD PERMANENT STATION.

IN THE CASE OF CALIFANO V. UNITED STATES, CT.CL.NO. 86-58, DECIDED MARCH 4, 1959, THE COURT OF CLAIMS HELD THAT A TRAVEL STATUS CANNOT EXIST FOR A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES IN THE ABSENCE OF A DESIGNATED POST OF DUTY AWAY FROM WHICH TRAVEL IS BEING PERFORMED, AND THAT ORDERS DIRECTING THE MEMBER IN THAT CASE TO PROCEED FROM HIS HOME TO A STATION FOR FOUR MONTHS' INDOCTRINATION AND FURTHER ASSIGNMENT TO DUTY DID NOT PLACE HIM IN A TRAVEL STATUS AT THAT STATION, SINCE IT WAS THE ONLY POST OF DUTY HE HAD AT THAT TIME.

IN OUR DECISION OF JUNE 19, 1959, 38 COMP. GEN. 849, COPY ENCLOSED, WE HELD THAT WE WOULD FOLLOW THE RULING IN THE CALIFANO CASE "IN ANY CASE" WHERE A MEMBER IS ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY FROM HIS HOME AND IS ASSIGNED TO A STATION FOR TEMPORARY DUTY, UNDER ORDERS WHICH CONTEMPLATE A FURTHER ASSIGNMENT TO DUTY UPON COMPLETION OF THE TEMPORARY DUTY, AND THAT SUCH STATION WOULD BE REGARDED AS THE MEMBER'S DESIGNATED POST OF DUTY. IN OUR DECISION OF JANUARY 11, 1960, 39 COMP. GEN. 511, COPY ENCLOSED, WE HELD THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF THE CALIFANO CASE IS APPLICABLE TO SUBSEQUENT TEMPORARY DUTY ASSIGNMENTS, SUCH AS THOSE INVOLVED IN YOUR CASE, WHERE THE MEMBER IS ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY AND ASSIGNED TO A STATION FOR TEMPORARY DUTY UPON THE COMPLETION OF WHICH HE IS TO REPORT TO ANOTHER LOCATION FOR TEMPORARY DUTY AND FURTHER ASSIGNMENT. WE STATED, ALSO, IN THE DECISION OF JUNE 19, 1959, THAT WHILE WE WOULD FOLLOW THE RULING IN THE CALIFANO CASE IN THE CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS SUBMITTED HERE FOR SETTLEMENT BEGINNING WITH THE DATE OF THAT DECISION, PER DIEM PAYMENTS MADE ADMINISTRATIVELY BEFORE JULY 1, 1959, WOULD NOT BE QUESTIONED, IF OTHERWISE PROPER. HENCE, YOUR CLAIM WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE ON OCTOBER 17, 1960, WAS DISALLOWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULING IN THE CALIFANO CASE. THE PER DIEM PAYMENTS WHICH YOU INDICATE WERE RECEIVED BY OTHER ENLISTED MEN WHILE ATTENDING SCHOOL AT FORT BENJAMIN HARRISON, PRESUMABLY WERE MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1959, AND SUCH PAYMENTS COULD NOT AFFECT YOUR RIGHT TO PER DIEM AS CLAIMED BY YOU. IN VIEW OF THE HOLDINGS IN THE CITED DECISIONS OF JUNE 19, 1959, AND JANUARY 11, 1960, NO AUTHORITY EXISTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF YOUR CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF NOVEMBER 22, 1960, IS SUSTAINED.

GAO Contacts