B-107402, JAN 30, 1953

B-107402, JAN 30, 1953

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

MR. A. L. ROHAN, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1952, YOUR REFERENCE T-, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION OF APRIL 7, 1952, B-107402, TO MR. A. J. DELFIELD, AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICER, BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY, WHEREIN IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THE MILEAGE VOUCHERS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF MR. DELFIELD'S REQUEST FOR DECISION PROPERLY COULD NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT. WITH YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 4 ONE OF THE SAID VOUCHERS AGAIN WAS TRANSMITTED HERE FOR DECISION AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF CERTIFYING THE SAME FOR PAYMENT.

YOU HAVE PRESENTED NO NEW OR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION BUT HAVE INDICATED THAT THE DIFFICULTY ENCOUNTERED IN DISTINGUISHING THE RATIONALE OF THE DECISION OF APRIL 7 FROM THAT OF AN EARLIER DECISION DATED FEBRUARY 26, 1952, B-107504, 31 COMP. GEN. 424, IS THE SOLE REASON FOR RESUBMISSION OF THE MATTER AT THIS TIME.

IN SUBSTANCE, THE DECISION OF FEBRUARY 26, 1952, ALLOWED REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSE OF A PARKING FEE AT THE AIRPORT PAID BY AN EMPLOYEE FOR A PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE USED FOR HIS TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN RESIDENCE AND AIRPORT INCIDENT TO HIS OFFICIAL AIR TRAVEL. AND DECISION OF APRIL 7, 1952, TO MR. DELFIELD, MENTIONED ABOVE, DISALLOWED MILEAGE FOR THE USE OF PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE (UNACCOMPANIED BY THE TRAVELER) FROM UNION STATION TO RESIDENCE AND FROM RESIDENCE TO AIRPORT. DOUBT IS EXPRESSED IN YOUR LETTER AS TO BASIS FOR THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO CASES SINCE IN THE LATTER CASE, AS IN THE EARLIER ONE, THE TRAVEL BETWEEN RESIDENCE AND AIRPORT AS ARRANGED BY THE EMPLOYEE RESULTED IN A COST TO THE GOVERNMENT LESS THAN THAT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED HAD TAXICABS BEEN USED BETWEEN SUCH POINTS.

WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT, IN EACH INSTANCE, THE TRAVEL BETWEEN RESIDENCE AND DEPOT AS ARRANGED BY THE EMPLOYEE RESULTED IN A SAVINGS TO THE GOVERNMENT, THAT FACT ALONE WAS NOT, AND COULD NOT BE, THE BASIS FOR ALLOWING REIMBURSEMENT OF THE PARKING FEE AS APPEARS TO BE THE VIEW EXPRESSED IN YOUR LETTER. RATHER, IT WAS CONSIDERED IN THE FIRST CASE THAT, SINCE EXPENSES SIMILAR IN NATURE TO THAT OF THE PARKING FEE ARE ALLOWABLE UNDER THE TRAVEL REGULATIONS IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH EXPENSES REASONABLY MIGHT BE VIEWED AS WITHIN THE ORBIT OF THE REGULATIONS EVEN THOUGH NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE APPEARING. THAT FACT, TOGETHER WITH THE FACTOR OF ECONOMY TO THE GOVERNMENT - IN KEEPING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF PARAGRAPH 1 OF SAID REGULATIONS - WAS CONSIDERED AS CONSTITUTING SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR ALLOWANCE OF SUCH PARKING FEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, AS DISCLOSED IN DECISION OF APRIL 7, 1952, THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS SPECIFICALLY LIMIT REIMBURSEMENT OF MILEAGE FOR USE OF PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE "WHEN ENGAGED ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS." CLEARLY, THE TRAVEL BY AUTOMOBILE PERFORMED BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE TRAVELER BETWEEN RESIDENCE AND DEPOT WAS NOT TRAVEL ON "OFFICIAL BUSINESS." SINCE THE REGULATIONS RESTRICT REIMBURSEMENT OF MILEAGE TO THAT INCURRED ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS, NO EXTENSION OF THEIR COVERAGE TO PERMIT REIMBURSEMENT OF MILEAGE OBVIOUSLY NOT INCURRED ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS IS WARRANTED NOTWITHSTANDING THE ECONOMY FEATURES THAT MAY BE INVOLVED IN AN INDIVIDUAL CASE.

ACCORDINGLY, THE VOUCHER, WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH, MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.