B-167556, OCT. 23, 1969
Highlights
WHO DISPUTES APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL RULE TO CLAIMS OF HIGHER LEVEL OFFICIALS AND ASSERTS BELIEF THAT EMPLOYEE'S REASONS FOR HOME LEAVE AND LOCATION AT TIME OF RESIGNATION ARE IMMATERIAL FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSE PURPOSES. IS ADVISED DECISION DISALLOWING CLAIM WAS BASED ON CONSIDERATION OF PERTINENT STATUTES. WHICH ARE APPLIED UNIFORMLY TO ALL CLAIMS REGARDLESS OF RANK OF CLAIMANTS. SINCE CLAIMANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE INDICATING GENERAL RULE WAS NOT APPLICABLE. COOK: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 30. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED UNDER THE GENERAL RULE THAT AN OVERSEAS EMPLOYEE WHO RESIGNS WHILE AT HOME ON LEAVE IS NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES FROM HIS OVERSEAS STATION TO HIS HOME.
B-167556, OCT. 23, 1969
TRAVEL EXPENSES--OVERSEAS EMPLOYEES--FAILURE TO FULFILL CONTRACT- REIMBURSEMENT ENTITLEMENT OVERSEAS EMPLOYEE DISALLOWED REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES FROM BRUSSELS TO ATLANTA, GA; INCIDENT TO HER RESIGNATION FROM STATE DEPARTMENT WHILE ON HOME LEAVE, WHO DISPUTES APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL RULE TO CLAIMS OF HIGHER LEVEL OFFICIALS AND ASSERTS BELIEF THAT EMPLOYEE'S REASONS FOR HOME LEAVE AND LOCATION AT TIME OF RESIGNATION ARE IMMATERIAL FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSE PURPOSES, IS ADVISED DECISION DISALLOWING CLAIM WAS BASED ON CONSIDERATION OF PERTINENT STATUTES, REGULATIONS, AND GENERAL RULES GIVING EFFECT THERETO, WHICH ARE APPLIED UNIFORMLY TO ALL CLAIMS REGARDLESS OF RANK OF CLAIMANTS. SINCE CLAIMANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE INDICATING GENERAL RULE WAS NOT APPLICABLE, THERE EXISTS NO BASIS FOR CLAIM ALLOWANCE.
TO MRS. RUTH M. COOK:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1969, CONCERNING OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1969, WHICH SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES FROM BRUSSELS, BELGIUM, TO ATLANTA, GEORGIA, ON OCTOBER 27, 1967, INCIDENT TO YOUR RESIGNATION FROM YOUR POSITION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED UNDER THE GENERAL RULE THAT AN OVERSEAS EMPLOYEE WHO RESIGNS WHILE AT HOME ON LEAVE IS NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES FROM HIS OVERSEAS STATION TO HIS HOME. THE REASONS FOR THE RULE WERE SET FORTH IN OUR DECISION AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE.
YOU STATE THAT THE DECISIONS SUPPORTING OUR DISALLOWANCE APPLY TO CLERICAL EMPLOYEES AND REQUEST EXAMPLES OF DECISIONS DISALLOWING CLAIMS OF HIGHER LEVEL OFFICIALS. YOU ALSO BELIEVE THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER WHY YOU WENT HOME OR WHERE YOU WERE WHEN YOU RESIGNED YOUR POSITION.
OUR DECISIONS ARE BASED ON A CONSIDERATION OF PERTINENT STATUTES, REGULATIONS, AND GENERAL RULES GIVING EFFECT TO SUCH STATUTES AND REGULATIONS. THE PERTINENT LAW, REGULATIONS, AND GENERAL RULES ARE APPLIED UNIFORMLY TO ALL CLAIMS REGARDLESS OF THE RANK OF THE CLAIMANTS. FOR EXAMPLE, SEE OUR DECISION B-167754, SEPTEMBER 8, 1969, COPY ENCLOSED. IN THE INSTANT CASE YOU HAVE NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE INDICATING THAT THE GENERAL RULE IS INAPPLICABLE TO YOUR CLAIM. THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO BASIS UPON WHICH TO ALLOW YOUR CLAIM.
WITH REGARD TO FURTHER PROSECUTION OF YOUR CLAIM, WE POINT OUT THAT DECISIONS OF THIS OFFICE ARE BINDING UPON THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. AS TO MATTERS COGNIZABLE BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS AND THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS, SEE 28 U.S.C. 1346 AND 1491.