Skip to main content

[Comments on Federal Employee's Claim]

B-256233 Published: May 12, 1994. Publicly Released: May 12, 1994.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

No summary is currently available

View Decision

B-256233 May 12, 1994

 

DIGEST

 

Dear Mr.          :

This responds to your letter of November 23, 1993, in which you appeal our Claims Group's Settlement Z-2868622, August 3, 1993, which allowed partial reimbursement of your relocation expenses and denied reimbursement of the balance.

Upon review of the record, we find no error of law or fact in the Claims Group's action. You transferred on July 6, 1992, from a position with the Department of the Navy, Puget Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington, to a position with the Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon. You were authorized relocation expenses and received a travel advance of $6,100. However, you were dissatisfied with your new position and requested your job back with the Navy. The Navy granted your request and you were notified of the acceptance on August 24, 1992, and you departed Portland on August 28, 1992.

The Corps of Engineers reimbursed you for your relocation expenses up to the date that you were notified that you could have your old job back. The total amount reimbursed was $4,130.32, leaving a balance due on the advance of $1,969.68. Subsequently, the agency allowed an additional amount for the rental truck used to transport personal furnishings to Portland, upon your furnishing a receipt.

We agree with our Claims Group that you are not entitled to further reimbursement. The balance of your expenses relate to the shipment of your household goods which were placed in storage in Bremerton and never shipped to Portland. The household goods were later returned to your home in Bremerton. An employee who transfers in the interest of the government and later retransfers to another duty station at his own request for his own convenience relinquishes his right to any further reimbursement for transportation expenses under his first transfer orders. 27 Comp.Gen. 748 (1948). Further, you are not entitled to actual expenses for the storage of your household goods as you request since you were authorized to use the commuted rate basis, and payment can only be made on that basis. Michael A. Weedman, B-226666, Nov. 23, 1987.

As to your allegations that you were harassed on your job by fellow workers, the appropriate remedy would have been to file a complaint with your employing agency or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Accordingly, our Claims Group's settlement is affirmed.

Sincerely yours,

Robert P. Murphy Acting General Counsel

Memorandum for the File

The employee here was transferred in the interest of the government from a position with the Department of the Navy, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington, to the Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon. He received a travel advance of $6,100. He became dissatisfied with the job after a few months because he says he was not given welding duties and because of harassment from another employee. He asked for his job back with Navy and it was granted.

Our Claims Group allowed reimbursement to the date he was notified of his retransfer. The Corps reimbursed him for his expenses up to that date of $4,130.32, and denied $1,969.68, on the basis that his retransfer was in his own interest and for his own convenience.

The employee has not really made a clear case as to why he should be entitled to additional reimbursement. Most of the expenses came from his household goods storage and delivery in and out, which were stored in Bremerton and never shipped to Portland. The household goods were later shipped out of storage into his house in Bremerton. His house was for sale, but he took it off the market without any penalties.

He seems to be arguing that his harassment had a bearing on whether or not his retransfer was in the interest of the government. He also is claiming actual expenses for his storage of household goods when he was authorized commuted rate.

Legal Arguments

An employee who retransfers in his own interest and for his own convenience prior to shipping his household goods relinquishes his right to further reimbursement for transportation expenses. 27 Comp. Gen. 748 (1948). Also, employees whose transfer is canceled are obligated to mitigate damages. Howard L. Patterson, 69 Comp.Gen. 287 (1990); Warren L. Shipp, 59 Comp.Gen. 502 (1980). An employee is not entitled to reimbursement of actual expenses if he is authorized commuted rate. Michael A. Weedman, B-226666, Nov. 23, 1987.

The only thing untoward that the Corps did in this case, I think, is withhold his last paycheck, without notice, of $974.72, which I don't think they should have done. 64 Comp.Gen. 907 (1985). But there is nothing we can do about that now, he received an advance, and the agency was collecting its money back.

In summary, the employee has not made any new arguments as to why he is entitled; the reimbursement on the part of Claims was fair.

Bob Heitzman April 21, 1994

To: Director, Claims Group/GGD - Sharon S. Green

From: Acting General Counsel - Robert P. Murphy

Subject:           - Request for Reimbursement - Relocation Expenses - B-256233-O.M.

Returned is Claims File No. Z-2868622 and a copy of our decision B-256233, dated today, affirming the Claims Group's action.

Attachments

 

 

Full Report

Office of Public Affairs

Topics

Claims reconsiderationsClaims settlementEmployee transfersFederal employeesHousehold goodsRelocation allowancesRelocation expense claimsTravel costsWorking conditionsMilitary forces