Skip to main content

B-170072, SEP 16, 1971

B-170072 Sep 16, 1971
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

THE REGULATIONS CITED BY CLAIMANT WOULD NOT AFFECT THE PRIOR DECISION SINCE THEY WERE RELEASED SUBSEQUENT TO PERFORMANCE OF THE TEMPORARY DUTY. ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR DECISION B-170072. EXPLAINING IN DETAIL WHY YOU WERE ONLY ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF MILEAGE AND TOLLS WHILE ATTENDING A COURSE OF INSTRUCTION AT FORT LEE. THAT DECISION WAS BASED ON THE REGULATIONS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE TEMPORARY DUTY WAS PERFORMED BY YOU. WHILE THIS REGULATION WAS ISSUED SUBSEQUENT TO YOUR TEMPORARY DUTY AND WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO YOUR CASE IT IS NOTED THAT NOTHING THEREIN WOULD AFFECT THE RULE EXPRESSED IN THE FIFTH PARAGRAPH OF OUR DECISION. TWO OF WHICH SHOW THAT PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE AT THE RATE OF $5 PLUS MILEAGE AND TOLLS WAS PAID TO THE EMPLOYEES WHILE ON TEMPORARY DUTY.

View Decision

B-170072, SEP 16, 1971

CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE - PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE DECISION REAFFIRMING PREVIOUS DENIAL OF A CLAIM BY MRS. LOIS C. TYLER FOR PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY WHILE ATTENDING A COURSE OF INSTRUCTION AT FORT LEE, VA. THE REGULATIONS CITED BY CLAIMANT WOULD NOT AFFECT THE PRIOR DECISION SINCE THEY WERE RELEASED SUBSEQUENT TO PERFORMANCE OF THE TEMPORARY DUTY. CLAIMANT HAS NOT PRODUCED ANYTHING WHICH WOULD REQUIRE REVERSAL OF THE PRIOR DECISION.

TO MRS. LOIS C. TYLER:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 14, 1971, WITH ENCLOSURES, CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM FOR PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY WHILE ATTENDING A COURSE OF INSTRUCTION AT FORT LEE, VIRGINIA.

ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR DECISION B-170072, JULY 20, 1970, TO MR. M. E. SMITH, ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE OFFICER, DEFENSE GENERAL SUPPLY CENTER, DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY, EXPLAINING IN DETAIL WHY YOU WERE ONLY ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF MILEAGE AND TOLLS WHILE ATTENDING A COURSE OF INSTRUCTION AT FORT LEE, VIRGINIA, FOR APPROXIMATELY 25 DAYS BEGINNING ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 17, 1969. THAT DECISION WAS BASED ON THE REGULATIONS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE TEMPORARY DUTY WAS PERFORMED BY YOU. IN ASKING THAT WE RECONSIDER YOUR CLAIM YOU FORWARDED COPIES OF DGSC REGULATION NO. 5000.1 DATED JUNE 1, 1971. WHILE THIS REGULATION WAS ISSUED SUBSEQUENT TO YOUR TEMPORARY DUTY AND WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO YOUR CASE IT IS NOTED THAT NOTHING THEREIN WOULD AFFECT THE RULE EXPRESSED IN THE FIFTH PARAGRAPH OF OUR DECISION, NAMELY, THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR TRAVEL ORDERS MAY NOT BE AMENDED RETROACTIVELY TO DECREASE OR INCREASE THE RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES.

YOU ALSO SENT COPIES OF FIVE VOUCHERS, TWO OF WHICH SHOW THAT PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE AT THE RATE OF $5 PLUS MILEAGE AND TOLLS WAS PAID TO THE EMPLOYEES WHILE ON TEMPORARY DUTY. THE OTHER THREE EMPLOYEES WERE REIMBURSED ONLY MILEAGE AND COSTS OF TOLLS AND APPARENTLY ERRORS WERE INVOLVED IN THE COMPUTATION OF MILEAGE AND/OR TOLLS. WE DO NOT HAVE COPIES OF THE TRAVEL ORDERS IN THE TWO PER DIEM CASES AND DO NOT KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT ERRORS OCCURRED IN SETTING A LOWER RATE OF PER DIEM IN THE ORIGINAL ORDERS. HOWEVER, YOU MAY BE ADVISED THAT IF CLAIMS FOR PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES TO YOURS WERE ADMINISTRATIVELY ALLOWED, SUCH ACTION WOULD BE DISAPPROVED IN THE POST AUDIT OF THE VOUCHERS INVOLVED.

IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF JULY 20, 1970, B-170072.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs