B-157853, NOV. 2, 1965

B-157853, NOV. 2, 1965

TO MR. H. REID BIRD:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1965, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT DATED AUGUST 3, 1965, WHICH DISALLOWED PART OF YOUR CLAIM FOR TRAVELING EXPENSES, AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOR TRAVEL OF YOURSELF AND YOUR WIFE FROM THE UNITED STATES TO SAO PAULO, BRAZIL. THE SETTLEMENT LIMITED THE CONSTRUCTIVE COST OF DIRECT TRAVEL TO ECONOMY AIR, WHEREAS YOU CONSIDER YOUR ENTITLEMENT SHOULD BE COMPUTED ON CONSTRUCTIVE DIRECT SURFACE COSTS, INCLUDING PER DIEM FOR SURFACE TRAVEL TIME. THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE VARIOUS ITEMS REFERRED TO IN YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 27 ALL RESULTED FROM OUR USE OF CONSTRUCTIVE AIR ECONOMY TRAVEL, EXCEPT THE $14.50 TAXICAB FARE IN SEPTEMBER 1964.

TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION NO. 5-61410 AUTHORIZED YOU AND YOUR DEPENDENTS TO TRAVEL FROM LISBON, PORTUGAL, TO SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, FOR HOME LEAVE AND TRANSFER TO SAO PAULO, BRAZIL. THE TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION PROVIDED THAT 6 FOREIGN AFFAIRS MANUAL (FAM) 100 WAS APPLICABLE.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOU AND YOUR WIFE TRAVELED BY PRIVATELY-OWNED AUTOMOBILE TO NEW YORK CITY AND FROM NEW YORK BY BOAT TO VALPARAISO, CHILE, AND BY AIR TO SAO PAULO, BRAZIL. YOU SAY THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ACCOMMODATIONS FOR TRAVEL DIRECT BY SHIP TO SANTOS, BRAZIL, WHICH WAS THE CLOSEST SEAPORT TO SAO PAULO. YOU POINT OUT THAT YOU SPOKE TO THE PERSONNEL OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE WHO INFORMED YOU THAT YOU WERE NOT REQUIRED TO FLY TO SAO PAULO BUT THAT YOU COULD BOOK PASSAGE TO THE WEST COAST OF SOUTH AMERICA, PAYING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DIRECT COST OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION FROM NEW YORK TO SAO PAULO AND NEW YORK TO SAO PAULO VIA THE WEST COAST OF SOUTH AMERICA AND AS A RESULT YOU DO NOT THINK YOU SHOULD BE HELD TO CONSTRUCTIVE COST OF TRAVEL BY AIR ECONOMY.

6 FAM 115 PROVIDES THAT THE TRAVELER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CORRECT PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL TRAVEL AND FOR THE PAYMENT OF ANY CHARGES INCURRED THROUGH FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE GOVERNING REGULATIONS REGARDLESS OF WHO MAY HAVE ASSISTED HIM IN MAKING HIS TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS. YOU CAN SEE FROM THE ABOVE-CITED REGULATION THAT IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO COMPLY WITH GOVERNING REGULATIONS FOR OFFICIAL TRAVEL REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT MAY HAVE ADVISED OR ASSISTED YOU IN MAKING THE TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS. 6 FAM 131.4-1C, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 15, 1964, SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT WHEN INDIRECT TRAVEL IS PERFORMED PARTLY BY AIR (WHERE THE AIR TRAVEL IS NOT ENTIRELY WITHIN THE COUNTRY OF AUTHORIZED ORIGIN OR DESTINATION) AND PARTLY BY SURFACE THE TRAVELER IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF DIRECT TRAVEL BY LESS THAN FIRST- CLASS AIR ACCOMMODATIONS. THE REQUIREMENTS OF THOSE REGULATIONS CANNOT BE WAIVED BY OUR OFFICE. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IN COMPUTING ALLOWABLE TRAVEL COSTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS THEREOF WAS PROPER. WE FULLY APPRECIATE YOUR VIEWPOINT IN THIS MATTER BUT, AS INDICATED ABOVE, WE ARE REQUIRED TO SETTLE CASES PRESENTED TO US IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW AND THE REGULATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER.

IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED FOR THE USE OF THE TAXICAB BETWEEN DULLES AIRPORT AND WASHINGTON, D.C., IN SEPTEMBER 1964, YOU ARE ENTITLED, HOWEVER, TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR THAT ITEM IN THE AMOUNT OF $14.50.

CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM FOR TAXICAB FARE OF $4.50 IN NEW YORK YOU SAY THAT UNDER CONSTRUCTIVE TRAVEL COSTS YOU ARE ENTITLED TO TAXICAB FARE FROM THE HOTEL TO THE AIRPORT. THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM OUR TRANSPORTATION DIVISION SHOWS THAT YOU COULD HAVE DEPARTED FROM WASHINGTON, C., BY AIR ON JANUARY 3, 1965, AT 5:05 P.M., WITH ARRIVAL IN NEW YORK AT 6:26 P.M. AND DEPARTURE FROM NEW YORK AT 9 P.M., JANUARY 3, AND ARRIVAL AT SAO PAULO AT 2:30 P.M. ON JANUARY 4, 1965. IF YOU HAD TRAVELED BY AIR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEDULE CONTAINED ABOVE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A STOPOVER IN NEW YORK OF LESS THAN THREE HOURS AND, THUS, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NECESSITY FOR STOPPING AT A HOTEL. THEREFORE, THE TAXICAB COST WOULD NOT BE FOR PAYMENT.

THE FACT THAT YOU WERE AUTHORIZED TO TRAVEL FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., TO SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, THEN TO SAO PAULO UPON COMPLETION OF YOUR TEMPORARY DUTY BUT ELECTED TO REMAIN IN WASHINGTON, .C., THEREBY SAVING THE GOVERNMENT MONEY IS NOT FOR CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING YOUR INDEBTEDNESS TO THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE OF THE INDIRECT ROUTE TRAVELED.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING WE MUST SUSTAIN THE ACTION TAKEN IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 3, 1965, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF $14.50 NOW ALLOWABLE. OUR CLAIMS DIVISION WILL ISSUE A SETTLEMENT IN THAT AMOUNT IN YOUR FAVOR IN DUE COURSE.