B-153384, FEB. 25, 1964

B-153384, FEB. 25, 1964

TO MR. M. E. COMEFORD, DISBURSING OFFICER, U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, PHILADELPHIA:

WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 13, 1963, YOUR REFERENCE NAPCT F, BY WHICH YOU REQUEST OUR DECISION WHETHER YOU MAY PAY THE VOUCHER THEREWITH ENCLOSED, FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES TO MR. THOMAS J. COOK, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, PHILADELPHIA, ASSIGNED TO THE HOPPER DREDGE "ESSAYONS.'

MR. COOK AND 32 OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CREW OF THE DREDGE "ESSAYONS" HAVE CLAIMED PER DIEM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $16 EACH, FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING AT NOON SEPTEMBER 23 THROUGH 9:30 A.M. SEPTEMBER 24, 1963. THE CLAIMANTS WERE SCHEDULED TO RETURN TO DUTY ABOARD THE "ESSAYONS" AT NOON ON THE 23D FOLLOWING A NORMAL OFF DUTY PERIOD OF 4 DAYS IN CONSONANCE WITH THEIR WORK TOUR OF 10 DAYS ON DUTY AND 4 DAYS OFF. BECAUSE OF ADVERSE WEATHER AND ROUGH SEA THEY WERE UNABLE TO BOARD THE SSAYONS," WHICH WAS ACCESSIBLE ONLY BY LAUNCH, UNTIL 9:30 A.M. ON THE 24TH. MEMBERS OF THE DREDGE CREW ARE ENTITLED TO QUARTERS AND SUBSISTENCE AT NO CHARGE ABOARD THE DREDGE DURING THEIR TOURS OF DUTY AND SINCE THE DREDGE DOES NOT REMAIN IN ONE LOCATION THEY MAINTAIN HOMES AT VARIOUS PLACES ON THE EAST COAST TO WHICH THEY RETURN DURING THEIR 4-DAY OFF DUTY PERIODS. THUS, WHEN UNABLE TO TRAVEL FROM SHORE TO THE "ESSAYONS" THE CLAIMANTS WERE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR FOOD AND LODGING TO WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED WITHOUT CHARGE ABOARD THE DREDGE.

SECTION 3 OF THE TRAVEL EXPENSE ACT OF 1949, APPROVED JUNE 9, 1949, CH. 185, 63 STAT. 166, AS AMENDED, 5 U.S.C. 836, UNDER WHICH THE CLAIMANTS SEEK REIMBURSEMENT, PROVIDES THAT PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE MAY BE PAID TO CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES "WHILE TRAVELING ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS AND AWAY FROM THEIR DESIGNATED POSTS OF DUTY * * *.' IT IS A WELL-ESTABLISHED RULE THAT A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED TO BEAR THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION FROM HIS HOME TO HIS DUTY STATION. SEE GENERAL 36 COMP. GEN. 450, 452. THE TRAVEL PERFORMED BY THE CREW OF THE "ESSAYONS" IN TRAVELING TO AND FROM THEIR HOMES BETWEEN 10-DAY TOURS OF DUTY MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL TRAVEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT. THE FACT THAT THE CLAIMANTS FOR CAUSES BEYOND THEIR CONTROL WERE UNABLE TO GET TO THE "ESSAYONS" ABOARD WHICH THEY MAY BE FURNISHED SUBSISTENCE AND LODGING UNDER THE ACT OF MAY 13, 1955, PUB.L. 35, CH. 38, 69 STAT. 48, WITHOUT CHARGE DOES NOT MAKE THEM ELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT UNDER THE LAW APPLICABLE TO PERFORMANCE OF TRAVEL ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS WHEN NO OFFICIAL TRAVEL IS ACTUALLY PERFORMED. FURTHER, WE FIND NO AUTHORITY IN THE TRAVEL EXPENSE ACT OF 1949 UNDER WHICH A REGULATION AUTHORIZING SUCH PAYMENTS COULD VALIDLY ISSUE.

THEREFORE, PAYMENT OF THE VOUCHER WHICH IS RETAINED IN OUR FILES IS NOT AUTHORIZED.