B-160811, MAY 22, 1967

B-160811, MAY 22, 1967

TO MR. MICHAEL PAPICH:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF APRIL 3 AND APRIL 11, 1967, IN FURTHER REFERENCE TO YOUR CLAIM FOR TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES IN THE SUM OF $668.53, INCIDENT TO MOVING YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS AND FAMILY FROM ANACONDA, MONTANA, TO WINSLOW, ARIZONA, IN MARCH 1965.

YOU ACCOMPANIED 10 JOB CORPSMEN TO WINSLOW, ARIZONA, SO THAT THE OTHER STAFF MEMBERS COULD RETURN TO THEIR HOMES AND MOVE THEIR FAMILIES AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS.

FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING YOUR ENTITLEMENT TO REIMBURSEMENT, IT IS DESIRABLE TO SEPARATE THAT PORTION OF YOUR CLAIM COVERING YOUR ROUNDTRIP TRAVEL FROM WINSLOW, ARIZONA, TO ANACONDA, MONTANA, AND RETURN, FROM THAT PORTION COVERING THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS.

OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU ACCOMPANIED 10 JOB CORPSMEN TO YOUR NEW OFFICIAL STATION AT WINSLOW AND THAT THE COST OF SUCH TRAVEL WAS PAID FOR BY THE GOVERNMENT. AFTER YOUR ARRIVAL AT YOUR NEW OFFICIAL STATION AT WINSLOW THERE WAS NO OFFICIAL NECESSITY FOR YOUR ROUND TRIP TO ANACONDA, MONTANA, AND RETURN, AND SUCH ROUND-TRIP TRAVEL MUST BE REGARDED AS PERSONAL TRAVEL AND NOT REIMBURSABLE.

ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT PORTION OF YOUR CLAIM COVERING THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS FROM ANACONDA, MONTANA, TO WINSLOW, ARIZONA, PROPERLY WOULD BE FOR ALLOWANCE IF SUCH TRANSPORTATION WERE APPROVED BY THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. AS WE PREVIOUSLY ADVISED YOU, THE EVIDENCE OF RECORD BEFORE THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT SUCH TRANSPORTATION WAS EVER AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED. WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF THIS PORTION OF YOUR CLAIM AT THIS TIME AND IFAPPROPRIATE APPROVAL IS OBTAINED REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WOULD BE PROPER FOR PAYMENT. HOWEVER, THE APPROVAL OF SUCH TRANSPORTATION IS A MATTER WITHIN THE SOLE DISCRETION OF THE EMPLOYING AGENCY AND OUR OFFICE IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE EMPLOYING AGENCY TO GRANT ITS APPROVAL.

THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 11, 1967, ARE REITERATED AND ANSWERED AS FOLLOWS:

"1. WHY WERE ALL OTHER PERSONS THAT WERE TRANSFERRED UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS REIMBURSED WHILE I WAS NOT?

WHILE WE HAVE NO SPECIFIC INFORMATION--- OTHER THAN THAT CONTAINED IN YOUR LETTER--- CONCERNING THE BENEFITS ACCORDED OTHER EMPLOYEES TRANSFERRING TO WINSLOW, YOUR CASE WOULD APPEAR TO BE DIFFERENT FROM THE ORDINARY CASE BECAUSE YOUR TRAVEL COSTS TO WINSLOW WERE PAID INCIDENT TO YOUR ACCOMPANYING ENROLLEES TO THAT POINT; HENCE, THERE WAS NO FURTHER TRAVEL TO BE PERFORMED BY YOU INCIDENT TO YOUR REPORTING AT YOUR NEW STATION. WE DO NOT KNOW WHY, IN THE EXERCISE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION, AUTHORITY WAS NOT GRANTED FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR IMMEDIATE FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS.

"2. WHY IS THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS EXTENDING EVERY EFFORT TO SETTLE THE CLAIM IF, AS YOU SAY, I WAS INFORMED PRIOR TO MY TRAVEL THAT THEY WOULD UNDERTAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR REIMBURSEMENT?

WE DO NOT KNOW THE EXTENT OF THE EFFORTS BEING MADE BY THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS TO SETTLE YOUR CLAIM. HOWEVER, ALL THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE BUREAU TO MAKE REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR IMMEDIATE FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WOULD BE TO APPROVE SUCH TRANSPORTATION.

"3. WHY WASN-T I INFORMED BY OFFICIAL MEMO THAT I WOULD NOT BE REIMBURSED?

THERE IS NO LAW OR STATUTORY REGULATION REQUIRING THAT YOU BE ADVISED IN WRITING THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE REIMBURSED FOR THE TRAVEL IN QUESTION, AND THE FAILURE TO SO ADVISE YOU IN WRITING DOES NOT PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT BASIS UPON WHICH YOUR CLAIM MIGHT BE ALLOWED.

"4. DR. WADE ROBINSON'S LETTER CERTAINLY INDICATES AN AGREEMENT WAS REACHED. DOESN-T THIS HAVE ANY BARING (SIC) ON THE CASE?

DR. ROBINSON'S LETTER MAY HAVE BEEN INDICATIVE OF HIS UNDERSTANDING IN THE MATTER. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REBUT THE STATEMENTS OF BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS OFFICIALS THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE REIMBURSED FOR ANY PART OF THE TRAVEL OR TRANSPORTATION IN QUESTION.

"5. THE ENCLOSED MATERIAL ALSO INDICATES THAT SOME PERTINENT INFORMATION IS MISSING.'

WE ARE NOT AWARE OF WHY YOU CONSIDER THAT CERTAIN PERTINENT INFORMATION IS MISSING FROM THE RECORD. THE ONLY THING THAT OCCURS TO US THAT IS LACKING IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS. AS INDICATED ABOVE, EVEN NOW IF THE EMPLOYING AGENCY WERE TO APPROVE YOUR CLAIM FOR TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS THE ALLOWANCE THEREOF WOULD BE PROPER. IN THE ABSENCE OF APPROVAL NO AMOUNT APPEARS TO BE DUE. ENCLOSURES ARE RETURNED AS REQUESTED.