B-167274, JUN. 2, 1970
Highlights
YOUR CLAIM WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 18. SINCE THE TRAVEL PERFORMED THEREUNDER WAS COMPLETED BEFORE YOUR TRANSFER TO NEW DELHI HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED. FROM LIMA TO SAN FRANCISCO IN JULY 1967 WAS RELATED TO YOUR TRANSFER ORDER OF AUGUST 11. SINCE SUCH TRAVEL WAS COMMENCED AFTER HER 21ST BIRTHDAY. IN YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 30 YOU STATE THAT YOUR TRANSFER TO NEW DELHI WAS MADE DEFINITE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF YOUR DEPARTURE FROM PERU ON SEPTEMBER 29. CONTRARY TO YOUR STATEMENT YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORTS THAT YOUR TRANSFER TO NEW DELHI WAS NOT DEFINITELY ESTABLISHED UNTIL OCTOBER 5. YOUR AGENCY ADVISES THAT SUCH APPROVAL BY THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT WAS NOT A MERE FORMALITY AND THAT.
B-167274, JUN. 2, 1970
TO MR. ERNEST L. LANGBEIN:
WE REFER TO YOUR LETTERS OF DECEMBER 30, 1969, AND MARCH 31, 1970, CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN TRAVEL EXPENSES AND PER DIEM INCIDENT TO YOUR TRAVEL IN 1967 FROM LIMA, PERU, TO NEW DELHI, INDIA, VIA SAN FRANCISCO AND WASHINGTON, D. C; AND IN 1968 FROM NEW DELHI TO SAN FRANCISCO.
YOUR CLAIM WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 18, 1969, B 167274, ADDRESSED TO AN AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICER OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. WE RULED THEREIN THAT YOUR TRAVEL ORDER TO SAN FRANCISCO FOR REEMPLOYMENT IN YOUR OLD POSITION, PENDING A FURTHER ASSIGNMENT, SINCE THE TRAVEL PERFORMED THEREUNDER WAS COMPLETED BEFORE YOUR TRANSFER TO NEW DELHI HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED. IN LINE WITH THAT RULING WE HELD THAT THE TRAVEL OF YOUR OLDEST DAUGHTER, MARY ELLEN, FROM LIMA TO SAN FRANCISCO IN JULY 1967 WAS RELATED TO YOUR TRANSFER ORDER OF AUGUST 11, 1967, AND, THEREFORE, MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS BEING INCIDENT TO A TRANSFER FROM LIMA TO NEW DELHI. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISALLOWED REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUR DAUGHTER'S TRAVEL FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO NEW DELHI IN MAY 1968, SINCE SUCH TRAVEL WAS COMMENCED AFTER HER 21ST BIRTHDAY.
IN YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 30 YOU STATE THAT YOUR TRANSFER TO NEW DELHI WAS MADE DEFINITE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF YOUR DEPARTURE FROM PERU ON SEPTEMBER 29, 1967, AND THAT, THEREFORE, YOUR TRAVEL TO THE UNITED STATES (AS WELL AS THE TRAVEL OF YOUR OLDEST DAUGHTER) SHOULD BE REGARDED AS BEING INCIDENT TO A TRANSFER OF STATION FROM LIMA TO NEW DELHI.
CONTRARY TO YOUR STATEMENT YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORTS THAT YOUR TRANSFER TO NEW DELHI WAS NOT DEFINITELY ESTABLISHED UNTIL OCTOBER 5, 1967, THE DATE THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA APPROVED YOUR ASSIGNMENT. FURTHER, YOUR AGENCY ADVISES THAT SUCH APPROVAL BY THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT WAS NOT A MERE FORMALITY AND THAT, THEREFORE, YOUR TRANSFER COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED DEFINITE UNTIL SUCH APPROVAL WAS RECEIVED. IN VIEW OF SUCH REPORT WE MUST AFFIRM OUR PRIOR RULINGS REGARDING YOUR TRAVEL FROM LIMA TO SAN FRANCISCO AND THE TRAVEL OF YOUR OLDEST DAUGHTER BETWEEN SAN FRANCISCO AND NEW DELHI.
CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM FOR PER DIEM FOR YOURSELF AND FAMILY DURING THE PERIOD OF DELAY IN SAN FRANCISCO AND PER DIEM FOR YOUR FAMILY DURING THE PERIOD OF TEMPORARY DUTY IN WASHINGTON, D. C; YOU ARE ADVISED THAT PER DIEM IS PAYABLE ONLY WHEN AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED BY A PROPER ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. SINCE YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, ACTING WITHIN ITS DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY, HAS REFUSED TO APPROVE PER DIEM FOR YOU AND YOUR DEPENDENTS DURING THE ABOVE-STATED PERIODS, AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SUCH REFUSAL IS ARBITRARY OR UNREASONABLE, WE ARE PRECLUDED FROM TAKING FAVORABLE ACTION ON YOUR CLAIM.
WE NOTE, THE REQUEST CONTAINED IN YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 31, 1970, THAT YOU BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE CASE PERSONALLY BEFORE ANY UNFAVORABLE DECISION BE MADE IN THE MATTER. HOWEVER, SINCE OUR DECISIONS ARE BASED PRIMARILY UPON THE WRITTEN RECORD AND AS A TRIP HERE FROM CALIFORNIA WOULD BE AT CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE TO YOU WE DETERMINED TO PROCEED WITH OUR DECISION TO YOU AT THIS TIME. OF COURSE SUCH DECISION DOES NOT PRECLUDE FURTHER RECONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM IN THE EVENT YOU DESIRE TO SUBMIT FURTHER EVIDENCE. ALSO, YOU ARE WELCOME TO VISIT OUR OFFICE IN WASHINGTON, D. C; FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING YOUR CLAIM.