B-164940, JUL. 16, 1969

B-164940: Jul 16, 1969

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

FAMILY DID NOT ACCOMPANY EMPLOYEE ON FIRST TRIP BECAUSE OF IMMINENT BIRTH OF ANOTHER CHILD SO THAT THERE IS REASONABLE BASIS FOR SEPARATE TRAVEL OF EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENTS SO THAT EMPLOYEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO 6 CENTS PER MILE FOR HIS TRAVEL AND TO 8 CENTS PER MILE. JENSEN: THIS WILL REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 3 IN WHICH YOU REQUEST OUR DECISION ON THE ENTITLEMENT OF MR. WHEN HE WAS ACCOMPANIED BY HIS FAMILY. THESE ARE IN ACCORD WITH PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION 2.3A (1) OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. THAT IS. YOU HAVE DISALLOWED MR. STUDIER'S CLAIM FOR MILEAGE ALLOWANCE IN THE FORM IN WHICH ORIGINALLY PRESENTED BECAUSE OF YOUR BELIEF THAT REIMBURSEMENT IS LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT ALLOWABLE FOR ONE TRIP FROM VANCOUVER TO SEATTLE AS THOUGH THE EMPLOYEE AND TWO DEPENDENTS HAD TRAVELED TOGETHER TO THE NEW OFFICIAL STATION ON SEPTEMBER 22.

B-164940, JUL. 16, 1969

CIVIL PAY - TRANSFERS - TWO TRIPS DECISION TO CERTIFYING OFFICER OF FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AUTHORIZING CERTIFICATION OF VOUCHER FOR MILEAGE FOR TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS FROM OLD STATION TO NEW. FAMILY DID NOT ACCOMPANY EMPLOYEE ON FIRST TRIP BECAUSE OF IMMINENT BIRTH OF ANOTHER CHILD SO THAT THERE IS REASONABLE BASIS FOR SEPARATE TRAVEL OF EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENTS SO THAT EMPLOYEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO 6 CENTS PER MILE FOR HIS TRAVEL AND TO 8 CENTS PER MILE, THE RATE APPLICABLE AS THOUGH HIS FAMILY TRAVELED SEPARATELY.

TO MR. REED H. JENSEN:

THIS WILL REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 3 IN WHICH YOU REQUEST OUR DECISION ON THE ENTITLEMENT OF MR. DONALD D. STUDIER TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION OF HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY VIA PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE INCIDENT TO HIS TRANSFER FROM VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON, TO SEATTLE, WASHINGTON.

THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED SHOWS THAT, PURSUANT TO TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION NO. SPECIAL (16) OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1968, MR. STUDIER TRAVELED FROM VANCOUVER TO SEATTLE VIA PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1968, TO REPORT FOR DUTY AT HIS NEW DUTY STATION. ON OCTOBER 31, 1968, MR. STUDIER RETURNED TO VANCOUVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF DRIVING HIS FAMILY BACK TO SEATTLE.

ON HIS ORIGINAL TRAVEL VOUCHER FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCIDENT TO RELOCATION MR. STUDIER CLAIMED A MILEAGE ALLOWANCE OF 6 CENTS FOR THE 166- MILE TRIP TAKEN ON TRANSFER TO SEATTLE ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1968, OR $9.96 AND AN ALLOWANCE OF 8 CENTS FOR THE TRIP FROM VANCOUVER TO SEATTLE ON OCTOBER 31 OR $13.28, WHEN HE WAS ACCOMPANIED BY HIS FAMILY. FOR THE LATTER TRIP MR. STUDIER MAKES NO CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF HIS OWN TRAVEL EXPENSE.

MR. STUDIER'S TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION PROVIDED FOR TRANSPORTATION OF HIMSELF AND MEMBERS OF HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY BY PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE AND STATED THE MILEAGE ALLOWANCES AUTHORIZED FOR TRANSPORTATION OF VARYING NUMBERS OF INDIVIDUALS. THESE ARE IN ACCORD WITH PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION 2.3A (1) OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, THAT IS, 6 CENTS PER MILE WHEN ONE PERSON TRAVELS ALONE; 8 CENTS PER MILE WHEN TWO PERSONS TRAVEL TOGETHER AND 10 CENTS PER MILE WHEN THREE PERSONS TRAVEL TOGETHER.

YOU HAVE DISALLOWED MR. STUDIER'S CLAIM FOR MILEAGE ALLOWANCE IN THE FORM IN WHICH ORIGINALLY PRESENTED BECAUSE OF YOUR BELIEF THAT REIMBURSEMENT IS LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT ALLOWABLE FOR ONE TRIP FROM VANCOUVER TO SEATTLE AS THOUGH THE EMPLOYEE AND TWO DEPENDENTS HAD TRAVELED TOGETHER TO THE NEW OFFICIAL STATION ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1968. THIS METHOD RESULTS IN REIMBURSEMENT AT A RATE OF 10 CENTS PER MILE OR $16.60. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR COMPUTATION AND THAT OF THE EMPLOYEE AMOUNTS TO $6.64.

YOU EXPLAIN THE BASIS FOR YOUR ACTION AS BEING THE APPLICATION TO THE CASE OF OUR DECISION B-164940, AUGUST 28, 1968, IN WHICH THIS OFFICE DISALLOWED A CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR USE OF A SECOND AUTOMOBILE IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSFER OF AN EMPLOYEE AND SPOUSE AND HELD THAT PROPER REIMBURSEMENT WAS LIMITED TO THAT TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEE WOULD BE ENTITLED IF THE COUPLE TRAVELED TOGETHER IN ONE AUTOMOBILE (NO ACCEPTABLE REASON HAVING BEEN FURNISHED FOR USE OF SECOND AUTOMOBILE).

WE NOTE IN THIS CASE THAT THE WIFE AND DAUGHTER (2-1/2 YEARS) DID NOT TRAVEL WITH THE EMPLOYEE WHEN HE FIRST REPORTED TO HIS NEW STATION BECAUSE OF THE IMMINENT BIRTH OF ANOTHER CHILD. THEREFORE, THERE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN A REASONABLE BASIS FOR THE SEPARATE TRAVEL OF THE EMPLOYEE AND HIS DEPENDENTS. COMPARE B-156433, JUNE 11, 1965.

WHILE THE USE OF TWO CARS IS NOT INVOLVED, THE SITUATION IS SOMEWHAT SIMILAR. IN ANY EVENT THERE BEING AN ACCEPTABLE BASIS FOR THE SEPARATE TRAVEL OF THE EMPLOYEE AND HIS DEPENDENTS WE SEE NO REASON WHY THE MILEAGE RATES SPECIFIED IN SECTION 2.3A OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED OCTOBER 12, 1966, WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO SUCH SEPARATE TRAVEL. IN OTHER WORDS THE EMPLOYEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO 6 CENTS PER MILE FOR HIS OWN TRAVEL ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1968, AND, IN ADDITION, TO THE RATE WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN APPLICABLE AS THOUGH HIS FAMILY HAD TRAVELED SEPARATELY. FOR TWO MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY THE RATE IS 8 CENTS PER MILE AND FOR THREE MEMBERS THE RATE IS 10 CENTS PER MILE. THE EMPLOYEE HAS ONLY CLAIMED 8 CENTS PER MILE FOR TWO MEMBERS.

THE VOUCHER, WITH ATTACHMENTS, IS RETURNED HEREWITH AND MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.

Nov 16, 2017

  • HBI-GF, JV
    We deny the protest.
    B-415036
  • Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc.
    We dismiss the protest because it raises a matter of contract administration over which we do not exercise jurisdiction.
    B-414410.4

Nov 15, 2017

Nov 14, 2017

Nov 9, 2017

Looking for more? Browse all our products here