Skip to main content

B-164127, MAY 15, 1968

B-164127 May 15, 1968
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

YOU ARE QUESTIONING THE DISALLOWANCE OF MILEAGE FROM YOUR HEADQUARTERS TO YOUR RESIDENCE ON MARCH 20. YOU FEEL THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO AN ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTIVE ALLOWANCE FOR TRAVEL TO THE BUS TERMINAL ON THAT DAY AND IF SO THEN IT IS YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE SAME WOULD BE APPLICABLE FOR THE TRAVEL DURING THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 3 TO MARCH 6. IT IS A RULING OF LONG STANDING THAT AN EMPLOYEE MUST BEAR THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN HIS RESIDENCE AND HIS OFFICIAL STATION. THE DISALLOWANCE OF ANY FURTHER AMOUNT FOR TRAVEL ON THAT DAY WAS PROPER. YOU SAY THAT THE SCHEDULED DEPARTURE TIME AND TRAVEL TIME OF THE COMMON CARRIER (BUS) WAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY RANDOLPH PERSONNEL IN ARRIVING AT THE AMOUNT FOUND DUE AND THAT YOU WOULD APPRECIATE OUR REMARKS IN REGARD THERETO.

View Decision

B-164127, MAY 15, 1968

TO MR. CLAUDE E. COOPER:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 6, 1968, CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM FOR EXPENSES IN TRAVELING FROM YOUR HEADQUARTERS RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS, TO LACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS, AND RETURN INCIDENT TO TEMPORARY DUTY PERFORMED BY YOU DURING THE PERIODS FEBRUARY 3 TO MARCH 6, 1959, AND MARCH 16 TO MARCH 20, 1959.

YOU ARE QUESTIONING THE DISALLOWANCE OF MILEAGE FROM YOUR HEADQUARTERS TO YOUR RESIDENCE ON MARCH 20, 1959. APPARENTLY, YOU FEEL THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO AN ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTIVE ALLOWANCE FOR TRAVEL TO THE BUS TERMINAL ON THAT DAY AND IF SO THEN IT IS YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE SAME WOULD BE APPLICABLE FOR THE TRAVEL DURING THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 3 TO MARCH 6, 1959.

CONCERNING THE DISALLOWANCE OF MILEAGE FOR TRAVEL BETWEEN YOUR HEADQUARTERS AND RESIDENCE ON MARCH 20, 1959, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT AFTER COMPLETING TEMPORARY DUTY AT LACKLAND AFB (NO COMMUTING INVOLVED) YOU RETURNED TO YOUR HEADQUARTERS AT RANDOLPH AFB AT 10 A.M. AND WORKED THE REST OF THE DAY BEFORE RETURNING TO YOUR RESIDENCE AT NEW BRAUNFELS, TEXAS. UPON RETURN TO HEADQUARTERS YOUR TEMPORARY DUTY CEASED. IT IS A RULING OF LONG STANDING THAT AN EMPLOYEE MUST BEAR THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN HIS RESIDENCE AND HIS OFFICIAL STATION. THE FACT THAT YOU RETURNED TO YOUR HEADQUARTERS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE DAY (MARCH 20) CREATED A SITUATION NO DIFFERENT THAN RETURNING HOME FROM HEADQUARTERS ON ANY OTHER DAY. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF ANY FURTHER AMOUNT FOR TRAVEL ON THAT DAY WAS PROPER.

YOU SAY THAT THE SCHEDULED DEPARTURE TIME AND TRAVEL TIME OF THE COMMON CARRIER (BUS) WAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY RANDOLPH PERSONNEL IN ARRIVING AT THE AMOUNT FOUND DUE AND THAT YOU WOULD APPRECIATE OUR REMARKS IN REGARD THERETO. WHILE WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES RELATED BY YOU MAY HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT FOR THE AGENCY PERSONNEL TO DETERMINE THAT TRAVEL BY YOUR AUTOMOBILE WAS ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT REGARD TO COMMON CARRIER TRAVEL, NEVERTHELESS, NO SUCH DETERMINATION WAS MADE. UNDER THE TRAVEL REGULATIONS AN AGENCY HAS AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT THE COST OF TRAVEL BY AUTOMOBILE TO THE CONSTRUCTIVE COST BY COMMON CARRIER REGARDLESS OF EXCESSIVE TRAVEL TIME OR IMPRACTICAL SCHEDULES.

IT MAY BE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO CONSTRUCTIVE ALLOWANCE FOR TRAVEL TO AND FROM THE BUS TERMINAL FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 3 TO MARCH 6, 1959, DURING WHICH YOU COMMUTED BY AUTOMOBILE EACH DAY. HOWEVER, YOUR CLAIM FOR TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE DURING THAT PERIOD WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, AS WELL AS OUR OFFICE, ON THE GROUND THAT IT CONSTITUTED AN IMPROPER CLAIM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.

SINCE WE SEE NO BASIS WHEREBY ANY PART OF YOUR CLAIM FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 3 TO MARCH 6, 1959, MAY BE ALLOWED THERE WOULD BE NO PURPOSE IN COMPUTING THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DUE YOU UNDER PROPER CIRCUMSTANCES.

ACCORDINGLY, THE PREVIOUS ACTION OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IN YOUR CASE MUST BE SUSTAINED.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs