Skip to main content

B-153405, JUN. 25, 1964

B-153405 Jun 25, 1964
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

YOU WERE ADVISED OF OUR DETERMINATION THAT YOU ARE INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES IN THE SUM OF $192.25. WE HAVE REVIEWED THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER OF APRIL 24 TO WHICH YOU REFER. IN OUR OPINION SUCH INFORMATION MERELY CONFIRMS THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME YOUR TRAVEL ORDERS WERE WRITTEN IT WAS THE INTENTION TO PRESCRIBE AN $8 RATE ONLY. SUCH $8 RATE APPARENTLY WAS PRESCRIBED ONLY AFTER IT HAD BEEN PROPOSED TO AND CLEARED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICE. OUR PRIOR ACTION REQUIRING COLLECTION FROM YOU OF THE RETROACTIVE INCREASE IN PER DIEM WHICH WAS PAID ILLEGALLY HEREBY IS SUSTAINED.

View Decision

B-153405, JUN. 25, 1964

TO PRIVATE DONALD W. STACKHOUSE:

YOUR LETTER OF MAY 29, 1964, REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR ACTION CONCERNING YOUR LIABILITY TO REFUND ERRONEOUS PER DIEM PAYMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $192.25. ON MARCH 19, 1964, YOU WERE ADVISED OF OUR DETERMINATION THAT YOU ARE INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES IN THE SUM OF $192.25, REPRESENTING RETROACTIVE PAYMENTS OF PER DIEM AT RATES IN EXCESS OF THE RATE PROVIDED IN YOUR TRAVEL ORDERS.

YOU REQUEST THAT THE MATTER OF YOUR INDEBTEDNESS BE RECONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FURNISHED BY BUREAU OF RECLAMATION REGIONAL OFFICE LETTER DATED APRIL 24, 1964, TO OUR OFFICE. WE HAVE REVIEWED THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER OF APRIL 24 TO WHICH YOU REFER. MOREOVER, IN ORDER TO INSURE OUR HAVING AN ACCURATE AND COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF ALL PERTINENT FACTS PERTAINING TO THE CLASS OF CASES IN QUESTION, WE REQUESTED AN ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT IN THE MATTER FROM THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION REGIONAL OFFICE, REGION 7.

THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED HAS BEEN GIVEN FULL CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, IN OUR OPINION SUCH INFORMATION MERELY CONFIRMS THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME YOUR TRAVEL ORDERS WERE WRITTEN IT WAS THE INTENTION TO PRESCRIBE AN $8 RATE ONLY. MOREOVER, SUCH $8 RATE APPARENTLY WAS PRESCRIBED ONLY AFTER IT HAD BEEN PROPOSED TO AND CLEARED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICE, REGION 7. THE FACT THAT THE AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL FAILED, AT THE TIME, TO RECOGNIZE THAT SUCH RATE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY COVER THE ADDITIONAL SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES INCURRED BY REASON OF THE TEMPORARY DUTY IN QUESTION DOES NOT AFFORD ANY LEGAL BASIS FOR THE RETROACTIVE UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF SUCH RATE. ACCORDINGLY, OUR PRIOR ACTION REQUIRING COLLECTION FROM YOU OF THE RETROACTIVE INCREASE IN PER DIEM WHICH WAS PAID ILLEGALLY HEREBY IS SUSTAINED.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs