B-163955, MAR. 14, 1969

B-163955, MAR. 14, 1969

TO MR. HAROLD J. FARRALL:

WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 19, 1969, YOUR REFERENCE 7-360, CONCERNING THE PROPRIETY OF PAYING TRAVEL, TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSFER ALLOWANCES AUTHORIZED BY BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56 TO AN EMPLOYEE WHO TRANSFERS TO A LOCATION NEARER TO HIS RESIDENCE THAN THE STATION FROM WHICH HE IS TRANSFERRED.

THE FACTS GIVEN ARE THAT THE EMPLOYEE'S OFFICIAL STATION IS SUGAR LOAF DAM, COLORADO, WHICH IS 40 MILES NORTH AND WEST OF BUENA VISTA, COLORADO, THE PLACE AT WHICH HE RESIDES. THE EMPLOYEE WILL TRANSFER TO SALIDA, COLORADO, WHICH IS 26 MILES SOUTH OF BUENA VISTA. YOU SAY THAT THE EMPLOYEE RESIDES IN BUENA VISTA BECAUSE HE WAS UNABLE TO SECURE A RESIDENCE IN LEADVILLE, COLORADO, WHICH IS 5 MILES FROM SUGAR LOAF DAM.

YOUR INQUIRY WAS PROMPTED BY THE DECISION B-163955, MAY 20, 1968, WHICH APPLIED THE FOLLOWING PROVISION OF SECTION 1.3 OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56 AS AMENDED BY TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM NO. 1, APRIL 7,1967:

"THE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES AND APPLICABLE ALLOWANCES MAY BE AUTHORIZED IN CONNECTION WITH A TRANSFER OF AN EMPLOYEE FROM ONE OFFICIAL STATION TO ANOTHER ONLY WHEN THE TRANSFER IS BETWEEN OFFICIAL STATIONS, AS THE TERM IS DEFINED IN SECTION 1.5 OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS. THUS, THESE EXPENSES AND ALLOWANCES MAY NOT BE AUTHORIZED WHEN THE OLD AND NEW POSTS OF DUTY ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE SAME CITY OR TOWN OR ARE BOTH WITHIN ANOTHER AREA DESCRIBED IN SAID SECTION 1.5.

"WHEN THE OLD AND NEW POSTS OF DUTY ARE WITHIN DIFFERENT OFFICIAL STATIONS BUT ARE ONLY A SHORT DISTANCE APART AND WITHIN THE SAME GENERAL LOCAL OR METROPOLITAN AREA, THE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES AND APPLICABLE ALLOWANCES IN CONNECTION WITH THE EMPLOYEE'S RELOCATION OF HIS RESIDENCE MAY BE AUTHORIZED ONLY WHEN THE AGENCY DETERMINES THAT THE RELOCATION WAS INCIDENT TO THE TRANSFER OF OFFICIAL STATION. SUCH DETERMINATION SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION SUCH FACTORS AS COMMUTING TIME AND DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEE'S RESIDENCE AT THE TIME OF NOTIFICATION OF TRANSFER AND HIS OLD AND NEW POSTS OF DUTY AS WELL AS THE COMMUTING TIME AND DISTANCE BETWEEN A PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AND THE NEW POST OF DUTY. ORDINARILY, A RELOCATION OF RESIDENCE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCIDENT TO A TRANSFER OF OFFICIAL STATION UNLESS THE ONE- WAY COMMUTING DISTANCE FROM THE OLD RESIDENCE TO THE NEW POST OF DUTY IS AT LEAST 10 MILES GREATER THAN FROM THE OLD RESIDENCE TO THE OLD POST OF DUTY. EVEN THEN, CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING A PARTICULAR CASE, E.G., RELATIVE COMMUTING TIME, MAY SUGGEST THAT THE MOVE OF RESIDENCE WAS NOT INCIDENT TO THE CHANGE OF OFFICIAL STATION.'

THE QUOTED PROVISIONS DO NOT ESTABLISH FIXED RULES TO BE APPLIED IN ALL CASES INVOLVING TRANSFERS BETWEEN OFFICIAL STATIONS WHICH ARE RELATIVELY CLOSE TO EACH OTHER. UNDER THE GENERAL CRITERIA ESTABLISHED BY THAT REGULATION, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE IMPROPER FOR THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION TO DETERMINE THAT A MOVE OF THE EMPLOYEE CONCERNED INTO A RESIDENCE AT HIS NEW OFFICIAL STATION IN SALIDA IS INCIDENT TO A TRANSFER FROM SUGAR LOAF DAM TO SALIDA. IN THAT CONNECTION WE NOTE THAT THE EMPLOYEE RESIDES SOME DISTANCE AWAY FROM HIS DUTY STATION AT SUGAR LOAF DAM BECAUSE OF A HOUSING SHORTAGE.

IF A DETERMINATION, SUCH AS REFERRED TO ABOVE, BE MADE THE ALLOWANCE OF THE BENEFITS AUTHORIZED IN CIRCULAR NO. A-56 WOULD APPEAR TO BE PROPER.