B-150504, JAN. 22, 1963

B-150504, JAN. 22, 1963

TO FIRST LIEUTENANT BOBBY C. HILL:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 3, 1962, RELATIVE TO YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL FROM NEW YORK, NEW YORK, TO MADRID, SPAIN, BY COMMERCIAL AIR, DECEMBER 30 AND 31, 1960.

BY SPECIAL ORDERS NO. A-6679, ISSUED ON OCTOBER 3, 1960, BY AIR RESERVE RECORDS CENTER, DENVER, COLORADO, YOU WERE ORDERED TO EXTENDED ACTIVE DUTY FROM YOUR HOME, KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE, FOR A PERIOD OF 36 MONTHS UNLESS SOONER RELIEVED, AND ASSIGNED TO 1620TH SUPPORT SQUADRON, MATS, APO 283, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, WITH APPROXIMATELY 10 DAYS' TEMPORARY DUTY EN ROUTE AT BOLLING AIR FORCE BASE, WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR PROCESSING AND COUNSELLING EN ROUTE TO PORT OF AERIAL EMBARKATION. NO MENTION WAS MADE IN THE ORDERS REGARDING DEPENDENT TRAVEL. IT APPEARS THAT AFTER YOU LEARNED OF YOUR ASSIGNMENT YOU MADE INQUIRY AT AIR RESERVE RECORDS CENTER, DENVER, COLORADO, FOR CONCURRENT TRAVEL FOR YOUR WIFE AND WERE ADVISED THERE WAS NOT SUFFICENT TIME BEFORE YOUR TRAVEL TO PROCESS YOUR REQUEST. UPON YOUR ARRIVAL IN SPAIN ON NOVEMBER 9, 1960, YOU AGAIN INQUIRED ABOUT DEPENDENT TRAVEL AND WERE INFORMED YOU WOULD HAVE TO EXTEND YOUR TOUR OF DUTY BY TWO MONTHS TO INSURE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE THE REQUIRED 36 MONTHS IN THE AREA. ON NOVEMBER 16, 1960, YOU APPLIED FOR AN EXTENSION OF SERVICE; HOWEVER, YOUR APPLICATION WAS DENIED FOR THE REASON THAT TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS TO OVERSEAS AREAS WAS RESTRICTED BY HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE MESSAGE 1414/60, DATED NOVEMBER 18, 1960, AND FOR THAT REASON THERE WAS NO NEED TO EXTEND YOUR TOUR OF DUTY. THAT MESSAGE, ADDRESSED TO ALL MAJOR COMMANDS, REQUIRED IMMEDIATE ACTION TO DISCONTINUE OVERSEAS MOVEMENT OF DEPENDENTS NOT IN RECEIPT OF A RESERVATION SCHEDULING OVERSEAS TRAVEL PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1, 1961. THE MESSAGE WAS ISSUED PURSUANT TO PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE OF NOVEMBER 16, 1960, 25 F.R. 12221, 12222. SINCE YOU WERE NOT IN RECEIPT OF SUCH A RESERVATION, TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENT AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE TO YOUR OVERSEAS STATION WAS PROHIBITED BY THAT WIRE, AND ON DECEMBER 21, 1960, YOU PURCHASED COMMERCIAL AIR TRANSPORTATION FOR YOUR WIFE FROM KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE, TO MADRID, SPAIN, AND SHE TRAVELED BY THAT MEANS. YOU WERE REIMBURSED THE AMOUNT DUE FOR HER TRAVEL FROM KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE, TO NEW YORK, NEW YORK. YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR HER TRAVEL FROM NEW YORK TO MADRID WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT OF NOVEMBER 21, 1962, FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN.

IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU SAY THAT WHEN YOU WERE ALERTED FOR POSSIBLE ASSIGNMENT TO SPAIN AND WHEN YOUR ORDERS WERE ISSUED, SPAIN WAS NOT A RESTRICTED AREA AND THAT AUTOMATIC CONCURRENT TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS WAS AUTHORIZED FOR YOUR GRADE (2ND LIEUTENANT) IN ACCORDANCE WITH AIR FORCE PAMPHLET 34-8-2, DATED DECEMBER 1, 1958. YOU SAY THAT IF YOUR ORDERS HAD BEEN CORRECTLY WRITTEN OR AMENDED AT A LATER DATE TO INCLUDE A STATEMENT THAT CONCURRENT TRAVEL OF YOUR WIFE WAS AUTHORIZED THE EXPENSE OF TRANSPORTING YOUR WIFE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCURRED. YOU CONTEND, THEREFORE, THAT THE AIR RESERVE RECORDS CENTER MADE AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR IN PUBLISHING YOUR ORDERS WITHOUT INCLUDING A PROVISION FOR CONCURRENT TRAVEL FOR YOUR WIFE.

CONTRARY TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING AIR FORCE PAMPHLET 34-8-2, DATED DECEMBER 1, 1958 (PAGE 16), RELATING TO SPAIN, PROVIDES THAT EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1958, AUTOMATIC CONCURRENT TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS IS AUTHORIZED FOR GENERAL OFFICERS AND COLONELS ONLY, AND THAT PERSONNEL BELOW THE RANK OF COLONEL AND ABOVE GRADE E-4 AND E-4'S WITH MORE THAN 4 YEARS' SERVICE, MAY MAKE APPLICATION FOR CONCURRENT TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS. IT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT OBTAIN CONCURRENT TRAVEL MAY SUBMIT APPLICATION FOR TRAVEL OF THEIR DEPENDENTS AFTER THEY ARRIVE AT THEIR BASE OF ASSIGNMENT IN SPAIN. SINCE YOU WERE ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY AND ASSIGNED TO A UNIT IN SPAIN AS A SECOND LIEUTENANT, AUTOMATIC CONCURRENT TRAVEL OF YOUR WIFE TO YOUR OVERSEAS STATION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED. CONCURRENT TRAVEL COULD HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED ONLY AFTER AN APPLICATION HAD BEEN APPROVED AND PROPER ORDERS ISSUED. AS INDICATED ABOVE, IT APPEARS THAT YOUR APPLICATION FOR CONCURRENT TRAVEL OF YOUR WIFE WAS NOT APPROVED FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT TIME BEFORE YOUR TRAVEL TO PROCESS YOUR REQUEST, AND THAT YOUR APPLICATION FOR YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL, EXECUTED AFTER YOUR ARRIVAL AT YOUR OVERSEAS STATION, WAS DENIED BECAUSE TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS TO THAT OVERSEAS AREA HAD BEEN RESTRICTED.

PARAGRAPH 7000 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROVIDES FOR TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS UPON PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION INCLUDING THE CHANGE FROM HOME TO FIRST STATION. PARAGRAPH 7005 OF THE SAME REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT WHEN A MEMBER IS TRANSFERRED OR ASSIGNED BY PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS TO A RESTRICTED AREA, HE WILL BE ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS TO A DESIGNATED PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES. THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR REIMBURSEMENT WHERE A MEMBER WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION, TRANSPORTS HIS DEPENDENT TO A RESTRICTED STATION OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AT PERSONAL EXPENSE. SINCE YOU WERE REIMBURSED FOR YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL FROM KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE, TO NEW YORK, NEW YORK, AND SINCE HER FURTHER TRAVEL TO YOUR OVERSEAS STATION WAS PERFORMED WHEN DEPENDENT TRAVEL TO THAT STATION WAS RESTRICTED, NO ADDITIONAL REIMBURSEMENT IS AUTHORIZED. THEREFORE, THE SETTLEMENT OF NOVEMBER 21, 1962, WAS CORRECT AND IS SUSTAINED.

WITH RESPECT TO YOUR ALLEGATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR IN PUBLISHING YOUR ORDERS, THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW SUCH AN ERROR. YOU ARE ADVISED, HOWEVER, THAT IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC STATUTORY PROVISIONS, THE UNITED STATES IS NOT LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENT ACTS OF ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES, EVEN THOUGH COMMITTED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES. GERMAN BANK V. UNITED STATES, 138 U.S. 573; 19 COMP. GEN. 503; 22 ID. 221. THUS, AN ERROR IN PUBLISHING YOUR ORDERS WOULD NOT ENTITLE YOU TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUR WIFE'S TRAVEL CONTRARY TO CONTROLLING REGULATIONS.