B-124886, MAY 28, 1956
Highlights
IN WHICH WE HELD THAT YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE OR TRANSPORTATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE DURING THE PERIOD OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH THAT BUREAU. WERE DIRECTED TO TRAVEL TO WASHINGTON. YOU SAY THAT YOU NOW HAVE IN YOUR POSSESSION A CHECK FOR THE NET AMOUNT OF THE COMPENSATION. YOU POINT OUT THAT YOU RESIGNED BECAUSE YOU WERE "UNABLE TO ADJUST TO THE STRINGENT NATURE OF TRAVEL REQUIREMENTS.'. THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATEMENT THAT THE TRAVEL REQUIREMENTS OF THE JOB WERE THOROUGHLY EXPLAINED TO YOU AT THE TIME OF THE PRE-EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW AND THAT THEY WERE COMPLETELY ACCEPTABLE TO YOU AT THAT TIME. YOU ARE INFORMED THAT OUR RULE IS TO ACCEPT THE REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS ON DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF THE CORRECTNESS THEREOF.
B-124886, MAY 28, 1956
TO MRS. PAULA T. WOLF:
YOUR LETTER OF MAY 8, 1956, REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 2, 1955, B-124886, TO MRS. VERA D. HUNTSMAN, AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICER, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, IN WHICH WE HELD THAT YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE OR TRANSPORTATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE DURING THE PERIOD OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH THAT BUREAU. IT APPEARS THAT YOU ENTERED UPON DUTY AT THE BOSTON REGIONAL OFFICE, AT 3:30 P.M. DECEMBER 3, 1954, AND WERE DIRECTED TO TRAVEL TO WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR A PERIOD OF TRAINING, DECEMBER 3 TO DECEMBER 24, 1954. YOU PERFORMED NO ACTUAL DUTY IN BOSTON. WHILE AT WASHINGTON, D.C., ON DECEMBER 13, YOU ABANDONED YOUR POSITION AND RETURNED TO BOSTON AND CLAIMED PER DIEM AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS FOR THE ROUND TRIP WHICH THE DECISION HELD TO BE UNAUTHORIZED. WE DID AUTHORIZE THE PAYMENT TO YOU OF COMPENSATION FOR THE PERIOD OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS BUT REQUIRED THAT THERE BE DEDUCTED FROM THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION DUE THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION PROCURED ON GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS FOR THE TRAVEL BETWEEN BOSTON AND WASHINGTON. YOU SAY THAT YOU NOW HAVE IN YOUR POSSESSION A CHECK FOR THE NET AMOUNT OF THE COMPENSATION. THIS CHECK MAY BE CASHED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO YOUR RIGHTS.
YOU POINT OUT THAT YOU RESIGNED BECAUSE YOU WERE "UNABLE TO ADJUST TO THE STRINGENT NATURE OF TRAVEL REQUIREMENTS.' EVIDENTLY YOU DISPUTE, HOWEVER, THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATEMENT THAT THE TRAVEL REQUIREMENTS OF THE JOB WERE THOROUGHLY EXPLAINED TO YOU AT THE TIME OF THE PRE-EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW AND THAT THEY WERE COMPLETELY ACCEPTABLE TO YOU AT THAT TIME.
CONCERNING THIS FACTUAL DISPUTE, YOU ARE INFORMED THAT OUR RULE IS TO ACCEPT THE REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS ON DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF THE CORRECTNESS THEREOF.
WHILE THE MATTER OF PAYMENT TO YOU OF COMPENSATION WAS NOT FREE FROM DOUBT, WE AUTHORIZED ITS ALLOWANCE SINCE, IN FACT, YOU COMPLIED WITH THE TRAINING ASSIGNMENT UNTIL THE ABANDONMENT OF THE JOB ON DECEMBER 13. REGARDING THE TRAVEL EXPENSES, HOWEVER, IT SEEMS EVIDENT THAT THEY CANNOT BE HELD TO HAVE BEEN ESSENTIAL TO THE DUTIES FOR WHICH YOU WERE APPOINTED SINCE, IN FACT, YOU ABANDONED YOUR JOB PRIOR TO THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY SUCH DUTY.
ACCORDINGLY, UPON THE PRESENT RECORD, WE FIND NO PROPER BASIS FOR MODIFYING THE DECISION OF DECEMBER 2, 1955.