B-178234, JUN 18, 1974

B-178234, JUN 18, 1974

1. EMPLOYEE, INCIDENT TO TRANSFER OF STATION, WHO WAS PAID FOR TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS ON THE BASIS OF COMMUTED RATE SYSTEM, IS NOT ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE EXPENSE OF SHUTTLE VAN INCURRED BECAUSE HIS HOME WAS LOCATED ON A NARROW STREET WHICH WOULD NOT ACCOMMODATE THE MOVING VAN SINCE USE OF COMMUTED RATE SYSTEM IS INTENDED TO COVER THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AS WELL AS ALL ACCESSORIAL CHARGES AND THERE CAN BE NO REIMBURSEMENT BEYOND COMMUTED RATE SCHEDULE, EXCEPT FOR STORAGE CHARGES. 2. TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEE IS DENIED REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION OF WIFE AND DAUGHTER WHO, BECAUSE OF CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING CHILDREN'S SCHOOLING, RIF ACTION REGARDING EMPLOYEE'S POSITION, AND WIFE'S DENTAL SURGERY, DID NOT TRAVEL TO NEW DUTY STATION UNTIL 25 MONTHS AFTER EMPLOYEE'S TRANSFER SINCE OMB CIRCULAR NO. A-56 PROVIDES FOR 2-YEAR TIME LIMITATION ON SUCH DEPENDENT'S TRAVEL AND BEING A STATUTORY REGULATION ITS PROVISION MAY NOT BE WAIVED.

TO ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION:

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE US BASED UPON A REQUEST FOR AN ADVANCE DECISION FROM THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION. TWO QUESTIONS ARE RAISED CONCERNING THE REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN RELOCATION EXPENSES INCURRED BY MR. JACK F. CULLY INCIDENT TO HIS TRANSFER FROM ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, TO GERMANTOWN, MARYLAND. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE POINTS OUT THAT THE VOUCHER SUBMITTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $961.74 INCLUDES $686.64 FOR COSTS OF MOVEMENT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS ON COMMUTED RATE AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES WHICH WAS PAID ON JANUARY 29, 1974.

IN HIS RECLAIM VOUCHER, MR. CULLY SEEKS ADDITIONAL REIMBURSEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $18.50 FOR THE COST OF A SMALL "SHUTTLE VAN" USED BY THE MOVING COMPANY TO TRANSFER HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS FROM HIS HOME TO THE MOVING VAN. HE STATED THAT THIS SYSTEM WAS NECESSITATED BY THE FACT THAT HIS HOME WAS LOCATED ON A NARROW LANE THAT WOULD NOT ACCOMMODATE THE LARGE MOVING VAN. REIMBURSEMENT OF MR. CULLY'S EXPENSES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS WAS BASED UPON THE COMMUTED RATE SYSTEM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $486.64.

THE COMMUTED RATE SYSTEM WAS AUTHORIZED BY 5 U.S.C. 5724(C), AND WAS IMPLEMENTED, AT THE TIME OF MR. CULLY'S TRANSFER, BY OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB) CIRCULAR NO. A-56 (REVISED EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1971). SECTION 6.3A(1) OF THAT CIRCULAR DESCRIBES THE EXTENT OF THE COVERAGE OF THE COMMUTED RATE SYSTEM, PROVIDING IN PERTINENT PART:

"*** THE COMMUTED RATE FOR SHIPPING INCLUDES PACKING, CRATING, UNPACKING, DRAYAGE INCIDENT TO TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER ACCESSORIAL CHARGES BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE STORAGE COSTS WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO REIMBURSEMENT UNDER 6.5."

NEITHER THE STATUTE NOR THE REGULATIONS PROVIDE FOR REIMBURSEMENT BEYOND THE RATES CONTAINED IN THE COMMUTED RATE SCHEDULE. THE COST OF ACCESSORIAL CHARGES WAS CONSIDERED IN COMPILING THE COMMUTED RATE SCHEDULES.

SINCE MR. CULLY WAS REIMBURSED ON THE COMMUTED RATE BASIS, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY FOR THE PAYMENT OF ANY FURTHER CHARGES. SEE B-173357, JULY 14, 1971, AND B-178505, JUNE 27, 1973.

MR. CULLY'S RECLAIM VOUCHER ALSO CONCERNS THE REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL AND PER DIEM EXPENSES FOR HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER FOR THEIR TRIP FROM ALBUQUERQUE TO GERMANTOWN, MARYLAND. MR. CULLY, ACCOMPANIED BY ONE OF HIS SONS, REPORTED TO HIS NEW DUTY STATION IN GERMANTOWN ON JULY 21, 1971. WAS ASSIGNED TO THE NUCLEAR ROCKET PROGRAM (NERVA). IN HIS RECLAIM VOUCHER HE STATED:

"1. MY WIFE AND DAUGHTER PLANNED TO JOIN ME IN JUNE 1973, MAKING ARRANGEMENTS ACCORDINGLY. MY WIFE, IN APRIL OR MAY 1973, HAD DENTAL SURGERY; ON HER FINAL CHECKUP IN JUNE, HOWEVER, THE DOCTOR TOLD HER SOMETHING WAS WRONG AND ADDITIONAL WORK MUST BE DONE. THIS WORK REQUIRED HOSPITALIZATION, AND THE EARLIEST DATE FOR IT WAS JULY 1973 - AFTER THE TWO YEAR LIMIT. RECOVERY FROM THE SURGERY AND FURTHER CHECK UPS DELAYED HER TRAVEL UNTIL AUGUST 1973.

"2. MY 16-YEAR OLD DAUGHTER, IT MAY BE SAID, COULD HAVE PRECEDED HER MOTHER, BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW FOR SURE WHEN MRS. CULLY WOULD BE ABLE TO COME BACK EAST. ACCORDINGLY, I BELIEVE IT UNREASONABLE TO ARGUE THAT MY DAUGHTER'S TRAVEL COULD HAVE OCCURRED BEFORE THE TIME LIMIT.

"3. THE SPACE NUCLEAR SYSTEMS OFFICE - ALBUQUERQUE EXTENSION, OF WHICH I WAS CHIEF, WAS CLOSED DOWN IN JULY 1971 AND I WAS ORDERED TO WASHINGTON. IT WAS MY INTENTION TO HAVE MY DEPENDENTS JOIN ME IN JUNE 1973, WHEN MY SON WOULD FINISH HIGH SCHOOL, UNLESS ARRANGEMENTS COULD BE MADE FOR THE WIFE AND DAUGHTER TO COME EAST SOONER. HOWEVER, THE NUCLEAR ROCKET PROGRAM, NERVA, ON WHICH I WAS WORKING CAME UNDER A CLOUD IN MID-1972; THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE APPREHENSION IN MY MIND (AND MANY OTHERS) AS TO THE VIABILITY OF THE NERVA PROGRAM. IN JANUARY 1973, SNS WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE NERVA PROGRAM WAS TERMINATED, AND IN FEBRUARY 1973 I WAS PLACED ON RIF STATUS. IN LATE JUNE AFTER MANY JOB INTERVIEWS, I CAME ON THE ROLLS OF WMT (DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT AND TRANSPORTATION).

"I CITE THE ABOVE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT FOR MORE THAN A YEAR PRECEDING JULY 1973, A PRUDENT MAN, IN THE JOB SITUATION I WAS IN, WOULD NOT HAVE MOVED HIS FAMILY FROM THEIR HOME IN ALBUQUERQUE UNTIL HE WAS SURE OF BEING ON FIRMER GROUND AS TO HIS FUTURE JOB SECURITY IN WASHINGTON."

OMB CIRCULAR NO. A-56, SECTION 1.5B, AT THE TIME OF MR. CULLY'S TRANSFER, PROVIDED IN PERTINENT PART:

"ALL TRAVEL, INCLUDING THAT FOR THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY, AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING THAT FOR HOUSEHOLD GOODS ALLOWED UNDER THESE REGULATIONS, SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE MAXIMUM TIME FOR BEGINNING ALLOWABLE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION WILL NOT EXCEED TWO YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE EMPLOYEE'S TRANSFER OR APPOINTMENT, ***"

THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE TRANSFER OF AN EMPLOYEE TRANSFERRED FROM ONE OFFICIAL STATION TO ANOTHER IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY IS THE DATE HE ENTERS UPON DUTY AT THE NEW OFFICIAL DUTY STATION. SEE B 176064, JULY 10, 1972. THEREFORE, MR. CULLY'S TRANSFER WAS EFFECTIVE JULY 21, 1974. HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER TRAVELED FROM ALBUQUERQUE TO WASHINGTON ON AUGUST 24, 1973, MORE THAN 2 YEARS BEYOND THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE TRANSFER. OMB CIRCULAR NO. A-56 IS A STATUTORY REGULATION WHICH HAS THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF LAW, AND THE TIME LIMITATIONS THEREIN MAY NOT BE WAIVED IN AN INDIVIDUAL CASE. 49 COMP. GEN. 145 (1969).

ACCORDINGLY, THE ITEMS CLAIMED BY MR. CULLY ARE NOT FOR ALLOWANCE AND HIS RECLAIM VOUCHER MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.