Skip to main content

B-166181, DEC 29, 1971

B-166181 Dec 29, 1971
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

EVEN IF GAO WERE TO CONCEDE THE SIMILARITY OF A TOUR OF TRAINING BETWEEN PERMANENT DUTY ASSIGNMENTS TO A FOREIGN DUTY TOUR BETWEEN REGULAR ASSIGNMENTS IN THE U.S. REIMBURSEMENT OF THE SUBJECT EXPENSES IS EXPLICITLY BARRED BY 5 U.S.C. 5724AA)(4) SINCE THE ASSIGNMENT IN LAOS SEPARATED THE ASSIGNMENTS IN THE U.S. WHICH HELD THAT THE EXPENSES INVOLVED HEREIN WERE NOT REIMBURSABLE. THE FACTS ARE PRESENTED IN THE CITED DECISION AND WILL NOT BE REPEATED HERE. CORPE WAS GIVEN THE POSITION OF FOREST SUPERVISOR IN KALISPELL. WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 115 MILES NORTH OF MISSOULA. OUR ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO DECISION B-161795. WHO WERE SELECTED FOR TRAINING AT A LOCATION OTHER THAN THEIR PERMANENT DUTY STATION AND ADVISED THAT THEY WOULD NORMALLY BE TRANSFERRED TO OTHER STATIONS UPON COMPLETION OF TRAINING.

View Decision

B-166181, DEC 29, 1971

CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE - SALE OF RESIDENCE - INTERVENING FOREIGN ASSIGNMENT DECISION SUSTAINING PREVIOUS SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIM OF EDSEL L. CORPE FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF A RESIDENCE AT A PREVIOUS DUTY STATION. EVEN IF GAO WERE TO CONCEDE THE SIMILARITY OF A TOUR OF TRAINING BETWEEN PERMANENT DUTY ASSIGNMENTS TO A FOREIGN DUTY TOUR BETWEEN REGULAR ASSIGNMENTS IN THE U.S., REIMBURSEMENT OF THE SUBJECT EXPENSES IS EXPLICITLY BARRED BY 5 U.S.C. 5724AA)(4) SINCE THE ASSIGNMENT IN LAOS SEPARATED THE ASSIGNMENTS IN THE U.S.

TO MR. GORDON W. MARSHALL:

WE REFER TO YOUR REQUEST DATED NOVEMBER 11, 1971, FOR SETTLEMENT OF MR. EDSEL L. CORPE'S CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXPENSES CONNECTED WITH THE SALE OF A RESIDENCE AT HIS FORMER DUTY STATION (MISSOULA, MONTANA). YOUR REQUEST HAS BEEN TREATED AS A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION B-166181, APRIL 1, 1969, WHICH HELD THAT THE EXPENSES INVOLVED HEREIN WERE NOT REIMBURSABLE.

THE FACTS ARE PRESENTED IN THE CITED DECISION AND WILL NOT BE REPEATED HERE. YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE STATEMENT ACCOMPANYING THE CLAIM STATES THAT BEFORE LEAVING HIS DUTY STATION IN MISSOULA, MONTANA, FOR A LIMITED ASSIGNMENT IN LAOS MR. CORPE UNDERSTOOD THAT UPON HIS RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES HE WOULD BE ASSIGNED TO A DUTY STATION OTHER THAN MISSOULA. YOU FURTHER STATE THAT UPON HIS RETURN MR. CORPE WAS GIVEN THE POSITION OF FOREST SUPERVISOR IN KALISPELL, MONTANA, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 115 MILES NORTH OF MISSOULA. OUR ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO DECISION B-161795, JUNE 29, 1967, WHICH HELD THAT EMPLOYEES, WHO WERE SELECTED FOR TRAINING AT A LOCATION OTHER THAN THEIR PERMANENT DUTY STATION AND ADVISED THAT THEY WOULD NORMALLY BE TRANSFERRED TO OTHER STATIONS UPON COMPLETION OF TRAINING, WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXPENSES UPON TRANSFER. MR. CORPE BELIEVES THE REASONING IN THAT DECISION SHOULD BE APPLIED TO A FOREIGN DUTY TOUR BETWEEN REGULAR ASSIGNMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES.

IN DECISION B-161795, JUNE 29, 1967, WE WERE CONCERNED WITH SECTION 4.1C OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED, DATED OCTOBER 12, 1966, WHICH GENERALLY PROVIDES THAT ALLOWANCES FOR REAL ESTATE EXPENSES ARE PAYABLE ONLY WHEN THE RESIDENCE AT THE OLD OFFICIAL STATION WAS THE EMPLOYEE'S ACTUAL RESIDENCE AT THE TIME HE WAS FIRST DEFINITELY INFORMED OF A TRANSFER TO A NEW OFFICIAL STATION. THE EMPLOYEES SELECTED FOR TRAINING WERE GENERALLY NOTIFIED WHEN THE TRAINING BEGAN THAT UPON SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF SAME THEY WOULD BE ASSIGNED TO PERMANENT DUTY STATIONS DIFFERENT FROM THOSE DESIGNATED BEFORE TRAINING COMMENCED. THERE WAS NO QUESTION RAISED OF TRANSFER BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND A FOREIGN COUNTRY. WE HELD THAT SUCH GENERAL NOTICE SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 4.1C EVEN THOUGH THE SPECIFIC DUTY STATION IN EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE WOULD NOT BE KNOWN UNTIL THE TRAINING WAS COMPLETED.

EVEN IF WE WERE TO CONCEDE THE SIMILARITY OF A TOUR OF TRAINING BETWEEN PERMANENT DUTY ASSIGNMENTS TO A FOREIGN DUTY TOUR BETWEEN REGULAR ASSIGNMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES, REIMBURSEMENT OF THE SUBJECT EXPENSES IS EXPLICITLY PRECLUDED BY 5 U.S.C. 5724AA)(4) AND SECTION 4 OF CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED OCTOBER 12, 1966. SEE 47 COMP. GEN. 93 (1967) AND B-169696, JUNE 2, 1970, COPY ENCLOSED.

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT OUR DECISION B-166181, APRIL 1, 1969, WAS CORRECT. THERE IS CONSEQUENTLY NO BASIS ON WHICH THE VOUCHER, RETURNED HEREWITH, MAY BE PROPERLY CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs