B-144373, FEBRUARY 24, 1961, 40 COMP. GEN. 482

B-144373, FEBRUARY 24, 1961, 40 COMP. GEN. 482

TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION - GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION - USE OF OTHER SERVICES - REIMBURSEMENT TRAVEL ORDERS WHICH AUTHORIZE AN OVERSEAS EMPLOYEE TO RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES BY AN INDIRECT ROUTE ARE TO BE CONSTRUED AS INDICATING AN ADMINISTRATIVE INTENT TO RESTRICT REIMBURSEMENT TO THE CONSTRUCTIVE COST OF DIRECT OCEAN TRAVEL, EITHER SURFACE OR AIR; THEREFORE, UPON A SHOWING THAT GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION VIA MILITARY SEA TRANSPORTATION SERVICE VESSEL WAS AVAILABLE FOR RETURN TRAVEL BY DIRECT ROUTE AT THE TIME THE EMPLOYEE ELECTED TO TRAVEL BY INDIRECT ROUTE AT PERSONAL EXPENSE, THE EMPLOYEE MAY BE REIMBURSED ON THE BASIS OF THE ESTABLISHED MSTS CHARGE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE EMPLOYING AGENCY HAD THE EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT TRAVELED BY DIRECT ROUTE PLUS AN AMOUNT FOR MISCELLANEOUS TRAVEL EXPENSES AND PER DIEM FOR CONSTRUCTIVE TRAVEL TIME BY DIRECT ROUTE. IN VIEW OF THE CONVERSION OF THE MILITARY SEA TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AND THE MILITARY AIR TRANSPORT SERVICE TO INDUSTRIAL-FUND-FINANCED ACTIVITIES AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARD CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTATION BY THESE ACTIVITIES, MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES WHO ARE AUTHORIZED, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED, AND WHO DO NOT USE AVAILABLE GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION BUT USE COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION AT PERSONAL EXPENSES, MAY BE REIMBURSED UNDER THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS FOR THE COST OF TRAVEL ON THE BASIS OF THE STANDARD PRICES WHICH THE SPONSORING SERVICE WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PAY HAD THE TRAVEL BEEN BY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION. B-141478, FEBRUARY 18, 1960, AND B-141545, MARCH 21, 1960, MODIFIED.

TO R. A. WATSON, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, FEBRUARY 24, 1961:

BY FOURTH ENDORSEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 1, 1960, THE COMPTROLLER OF THE NAVY FORWARDED HERE YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 7, 1960, REQUESTING OUR ADVANCE DECISIONS AS TO THE PROPER BASIS FOR REIMBURSEMENT ON THE SUBMITTED TRAVEL VOUCHER IN FAVOR OF MR. WALDRON W. COX FOR EXPENSES FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED BY HIM AND HIS DEPENDENT (WIFE) FROM CUBI POINT, PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, BETWEEN JULY 1 AND 29, 1960, INCIDENT TO HIS SERVICE AS A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT MR. COX WAS EMPLOYED AS A QUARTERMAN (MAINTENANCE) AT THE U.S. NAVAL AIR STATION, CUBI POINT, PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, AND EXECUTED A RENEWAL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ON FEBRUARY 21, 1958. HE HAD FULFILLED THE TERMS OF THE RENEWAL AGREEMENT AND WAS ENTITLED TO RETURN TO TRANSPORTATION TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, FOR HIMSELF AND HIS DEPENDENT WIFE, WHEN HE RESIGNED ON MAY 9, 1960, EFFECTIVE ON JULY 29, 1960, TO RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES. TRAVEL ORDER NO. T-38-60, DATED MAY 24, 1960, AUTHORIZED MR. COX AND HIS WIFE TO TRAVEL FROM CUBI POINT, PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. SUCH ORDERS AUTHORIZED TRAVEL BY SURFACE VESSEL, RAILROAD, OR BUS, AND AIRCRAFT (COMMERCIAL OR GOVERNMENT) IN ACCORDANCE WITH NAVY DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS GOVERNING AIR TRAVEL. OFFICE OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS LETTERS OF MAY 7, 1959, AND APRIL 13, 1960, TO COMMANDER U.S. NAVAL FORCES PHILIPPINES PROVIDED THAT WHEN TRAVEL OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT IS PERFORMED BY INDIRECT ROUTE THEY ARE ENTITLED TO CONSTRUCTION COST OF DIRECT RETURN TRAVEL BY MILITARY SEA TRANSPORTATION SERVICE IF AVAILABLE AT THE TIME TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED. PARAGRAPH 6 OF THE TRAVEL ORDERS STATES:

EMPLOYEE ELECTS TO RETURN TRAVEL VIA INDIRECT ROUTE AT HIS OWN EXPENSE SUBJECT TO REIMBURSEMENT ON BASIS OF CONSTRUCTIVE TRAVEL COST BY DIRECT ROUTE.

YOU SAY THAT GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION VIA MSTS FROM MANILA TO SAN FRANCISCO WAS AVAILABLE IN JUNE, JULY, AND AUGUST, 1960.

THE EMPLOYEE'S TRAVEL ITINERARY SHOWS THAT HE AND HIS WIFE LEFT CUBI POINT JULY 1, 1960, AND TRAVELED BY GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT TO MANILA, THENCE BY COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT VIA TAIPEI, FORMOSA, AND TOKYO, JAPAN, TO ANCHORAGE, ALASKA. THEY TRAVELED BY COMMERCIAL RAIL FROM ANCHORAGE TO FAIRBANKS, BY COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT TO WHITEHORSE, BY COMMERCIAL RAIL TO SKAGWAY, AND BY COMMERCIAL VESSEL TO VANCOUVER, B.C. THEY TRAVELED BY COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT FROM VANCOUVER VIA SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, AND ASTORIA, OREGON, TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, WHERE THEY ARRIVED ON JULY 29, 1960. THE COST OF TRAVEL AS PERFORMED BY MR. COX AND HIS WIFE FROM CUBI POINT, TO SAN FRANCISCO, IS SHOWN ON THE TRAVEL VOUCHER AS $1,595.74, PLUS MISCELLANEOUS TRAVEL EXPENSES OF $49.95, TOTALING $1,645.69. ALSO, HE CLAIMS PER DIEM FOR 3 DAYS AT $6 PER DAY ($18) COMPUTED ON CONSTRUCTIVE TRAVEL TIME FROM MANILA TO SAN FRANCISCO.

YOU SAY THAT IN VIEW OF DECISIONS B-118922, DATED DECEMBER 1, 1954, AND B -141545, DATED MARCH 21, 1960, DOUBT EXISTS AS TO THE CORRECT BASIS ON WHICH SETTLEMENT MAY BE MADE ON CLAIMS SUBMITTED BY CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES INVOLVING TRAVEL PERFORMED VIA AN INDIRECT ROUTE AT PERSONAL EXPENSE WHEN GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION IS AVAILABLE VIA THE DIRECT ROUTE OR WHEN TRAVEL IS PERFORMED VIA A DIRECT ROUTE AT PERSONAL EXPENSE WHEN GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION IS ALSO AVAILABLE VIA THE DIRECT ROUTE.

INCIDENT TO HIS CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, MR. COX WAS ENTITLED, UNDER 5 U.S.C. 73B-3, TO TRANSPORTATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE FOR HIMSELF AND HIS WIFE FROM CUBI POINT, PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROVIDE (SECTION 3.3) THAT WHEN AN EMPLOYEE PERFORMS TRAVEL BY AN INDIRECT ROUTE THE EXTRA EXPENSE IS CHARGEABLE TO THE EMPLOYEE AND REIMBURSEMENT THEREFOR IS RESTRICTED TO THOSE CHARGES WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY A USUALLY TRAVELED ROUTE.

WHILE THE TRAVEL ORDER DATED MAY 24, 1960, AUTHORIZED THE CLAIMANT AND HIS WIFE TO TRAVEL FROM CUBI POINT TO SAN FRANCISCO BY AN INDIRECT ROUTE, SUCH ORDERS ARE CONSTRUED AS INDICATING AN ADMINISTRATIVE INTENT TO RESTRICT REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EMPLOYEE TO THE CONSTRUCTIVE COST OF DIRECT OCEAN TRAVEL, EITHER SURFACE OR AIR, TO SAN FRANCISCO SINCE THE ORDERS STATE THAT THE EMPLOYEE ELECTED TO TRAVEL VIA THE INDIRECT ROUTE AT HIS OWN EXPENSE SUBJECT TO REIMBURSEMENT ON THE BASIS OF CONSTRUCTIVE TRAVEL COST BY THE DIRECT ROUTE. SINCE IT IS SHOWN THAT GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION VIA MSTS FROM MANILA TO SAN FRANCISCO WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME THE TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED BY MR. COX AND HIS WIFE AND WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE O.I.R. LETTERS OF MAY 7 AND APRIL 13, ABOVE, HE IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE ESTABLISHED MILITARY SEA TRANSPORTATION SERVICE CHARGE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HAD HE AND HIS WIFE TRAVELED FROM MANILA TO SAN FRANCISCO BY A MILITARY SEA TRANSPORTATION SERVICE VESSEL. SEE B-118922, DATED DECEMBER 1, 1954. ALSO, HE IS ENTITLED TO THE AMOUNT PROPERLY DUE FOR MISCELLANEOUS TRAVEL EXPENSES AND PER DIEM. PAYMENT ON THE CLAIM IS AUTHORIZED ON SUCH BASIS. THE VOUCHER AND SUPPORTING PAPERS ARE RETURNED HEREWITH.

SECTION 3303 (A) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, 37 U.S.C. 253, PROVIDES THAT UNDER REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARIES CONCERNED, MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED UNDER COMPETENT ORDERS UPON PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION OR OTHERWISE. PARAGRAPH 4150-2 AND 4203-3C, JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO SAID ACT, PROVIDE THAT WHEN TRAVEL IS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO BE PERFORMED BY GOVERNMENT CONVEYANCE AND SUCH CONVEYANCE IS AVAILABLE BUT TRAVEL IS PERFORMED BY ANOTHER MODE OF TRANSPORTATION, PAYMENT OF THE MONETARY ALLOWANCE IN LIEU OF TRANSPORTATION IS PROHIBITED. SUCH ABSOLUTE RESTRICTION ON REIMBURSEMENT, HOWEVER, IS NOT APPLICABLE IN CASES WHEN THE USE OF AVAILABLE GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION IS AUTHORIZED, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED.

OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 18, 1960, B-141478, RELATED TO THE QUESTION OF ENTITLEMENT OF AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR HIS TRAVEL BY COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT AT PERSONAL EXPENSE FROM PARIS, FRANCE, TO WASHINGTON, D.C. THE ORDERS IN THAT CASE IN EFFECT DIRECTED THE OFFICER TO PERFORM THE TRAVEL BY GOVERNMENT AIR TRANSPORTATION IF AVAILABLE. SUCH TRANSPORTATION WAS AVAILABLE BUT THE OFFICER TRAVELED BY COMMERCIAL AIR. SINCE THE USE OF GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION HAD BEEN SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED, WE CONCLUDED THAT UNDER THE LAW AND REGULATIONS HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR HIS TRAVEL. WHILE NOT MATERIAL TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE CASE, THE DECISION STATED THAT:

CONCERNING YOUR REQUEST THAT YOU BE ALLOWED AT LEAST THE AMOUNT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE HAD TO PAY THE MILITARY AIR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE "UNDER INDUSTRIAL FUNDING" FOR YOUR TRANSPORTATION YOU ARE ADVISED THAT THE INDUSTRIAL FUND IS MERELY GOVERNMENT MONEYS DEPOSITED IN A WORKING CAPITAL FUND WHICH IS THE METHOD UTILIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR FINANCING AND ACCOUNTING FOR GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES. IN YOUR CASE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A TRANSFER OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS FROM YOUR SPONSORING AGENCY (1NAVY) TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE FOR PROVIDING YOU TRANSPORTATION. HOWEVER, SINCE ULTIMATELY THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MILITARY AIR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE FLIGHT FROM PARIS TO THE UNITED STATES ON JULY 10, 1959, WAS THE SAME WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE A PASSENGER, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS TO ALLOW YOU ANY SUM FOR THE COST OF YOUR TRANSPORTATION ON A COMPARATIVE COST BASIS.

OUR DECISION OF MARCH 21, 1960, B-141545, DENIED THE CLAIM OF AN ENLISTED MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF TRAVEL OF HIS DEPENDENT WIFE TO HIS NEW PERMANENT STATION ON THE BASIS THAT HAD SHE BEEN AT HIS OLD PERMANENT STATION OVERSEAS SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN FURNISHED TRANSPORTATION ON AN MSTS VESSEL AND, THEREFORE, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE INCURRED NO COST FOR HER TRANSPORTATION. IN THAT RESPECT WE SAID:

THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGE PAID BY THE SERVICE CONCERNED TO THE MATS OR MSTS FOR DEPENDENT PASSENGERS REPRESENTS GOVERNMENT MONEYS PAID BY ONE GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY TO ANOTHER AND IS MERELY THE METHOD UTILIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR FINANCING AND ACCOUNTING FOR GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES. IN THIS CASE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A TRANSFER OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS BETWEEN TWO ACCOUNTS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FOR PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION FOR THE MEMBER'S DEPENDENT WIFE. HOWEVER, SINCE ULTIMATELY THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MSTS VOYAGE FROM ADAK TO SAN FRANCISCO AT THE TIME INVOLVED WAS THE SAME WHETHER OR NOT THE MEMBER'S DEPENDENT WIFE WAS A PASSENGER, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS TO ADD A SUM REPRESENTING THE FARE FOR THAT VOYAGE IN COMPUTING ANY MILEAGE ALLOWANCE DUE THE MEMBER FOR HIS WIFE'S TRAVEL.

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THOSE TWO CASES WERE BASED UPON TRAVEL ALLOWANCE LAWS AND REGULATIONS AND THE TRANSPORTATION PAYMENT PRACTICES WHICH HAD BEEN FOLLOWED FOR YEARS BY THE GOVERNMENT. APPARENTLY FUNDS WERE APPROPRIATED TO OPERATE THE GOVERNMENT CARRIERS WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY RECOVERY OF TRANSPORTATION COSTS AND GENERALLY NO CHARGES WERE MADE AS SUCH FOR TRANSPORTATION FURNISHED TRAVELERS ABOARD GOVERNMENT CARRIERS. THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS PAID NOTHING FOR THE MOVEMENT OF THEIR MEMBERS BY SUCH CARRIERS AND PRESUMABLY TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS WERE MADE ON THAT BASIS. THE OPERATING APPROPRIATION BORE THE ENTIRE COST OF OPERATING THE CARRIERS REGARDLESS OF WHAT WAS CARRIED AND ONLY THE SUBSISTENCE CHARGES WHICH THE MEMBERS WERE REQUIRED TO PAY TO THE CARRIERS WERE REIMBURSED AS TRAVEL EXPENSES. COMPARE 5 COMP. GEN. 226. NO AMOUNT IN ADDITION TO THE SUMS APPROPRIATED WAS PAYABLE TOWARD SUCH OPERATION AND THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR CHARGING THE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS WITH ANY TRANSPORTATION COSTS WHEN AVAILABLE GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION WAS NOT USED.

HOWEVER, UNDER INDUSTRIAL FUND OPERATING PROGRAMS INSTITUTED PURSUANT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947, AND PRESENTLY PRESCRIBED BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DIRECTIVE 7410.4, JULY 17, 1958, ISSUED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THAT ACT, THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS HAVE CONVERTED THE MILITARY SEA TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AND THE MILITARY AIR TRANSPORT SERVICE FROM APPROPRIATION FINANCED TO INDUSTRIAL-FUND-FINANCED ACTIVITIES. THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES MADE BY THOSE ACTIVITIES FOR THE USE OF THEIR SERVICES AND PAID BY THE USING DEPARTMENT ARE BASED ON STANDARD PRICES WHICH ARE DESIGNED TO ALLOW THE FUNDS TO RECOVER OVER A PERIOD OF TIME THE ACTUAL COST OF OPERATION. AN ACTUAL DIRECT COST UNQUESTIONABLY IS INCURRED BY THE GOVERNMENT WHENEVER TRAVEL IS PERFORMED BY THE MILITARY SEA TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AND THE MILITARY AIR TRANSPORT SERVICE; AND, WHILE THE ACTUAL DIRECT COST ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY INDIVIDUAL PASSENGER MAY NOT BE READILY DETERMINABLE, WE HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT THE USE OF STANDARD PRICES CONSTITUTES A REASONABLE AND PROPER MEANS OF RECOVERING SUCH COSTS. SEE 2 GAO 7020.40C; B-126562, MARCH 13, 1956.

THEREFORE, WE CONCLUDE THAT AFTER THE CONVERSION OF THE MILITARY SEA TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AND MILITARY AIR TRANSPORT SERVICE TO INDUSTRIAL FUND-FINANCED ACTIVITIES AND THE PROMULGATION OF STANDARD CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTATION BY THESE ACTIVITIES MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES WHO ARE AUTHORIZED, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED, TO TRAVEL BY GOVERNMENT CONVEYANCE, AND WHO DO NOT USE AVAILABLE GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION BUT USE COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION AT PERSONAL EXPENSE, MAY BE REIMBURSED UNDER THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS FOR THE COST OF SUCH TRAVEL ON THE BASIS OF THE STANDARD PRICES WHICH THE SPONSORING SERVICE WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PAY HAD THE TRAVEL BEEN BY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION. WE FIND NOTHING IN THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 7 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE LIKE REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE COST OF DEPENDENT TRAVEL, IN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES. ANYTHING SAID IN THE DECISIONS OF FEBRUARY 18, 1960, AND MARCH 21, 1960, WHICH MAY BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED HEREIN SHOULD BE DISREGARDED.

IN CONNECTION WITH THIS MATTER GENERALLY, WE BELIEVE THAT WHENEVER FEASIBLE, TRAVEL BY GOVERNMENT CONVEYANCE SHOULD BE SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED.