B-128423, AUG. 15, 1956

B-128423, AUG. 15, 1956

TO THE HONORABLE FRANKLIN G. FLOETE, ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION:

YOUR LETTER OF JULY 30, 1956, REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF THAT PORTION OF OUR DECISION OF JULY 18, B-128423, IN WHICH WE CONCLUDED THAT APPROPRIATIONS OF YOUR AGENCY ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR EXPENSES OF TRAINING (SALARY PAYMENTS) OF EMPLOYEES ATTENDING A 10-MONTHS' COURSE IN ECONOMIC MOBILIZATION AT THE INDUSTRIAL COLLEGE OF THE ARMED FORCES.

IN ADDITION TO POINTING OUT THE DESIRABILITY OF ATTENDANCE BY PERSONNEL OF YOUR AGENCY AT THE CLASSES ON ECONOMIC MOBILIZATION CONDUCTED BY THE INDUSTRIAL COLLEGE, YOU STATE THAT A DIFFERENT RULE SHOULD APPLY IN THE CASE OF IN-SERVICE TRAINING THAN THAT APPLICABLE WHERE TRAINING IS RECEIVED FROM PRIVATE SOURCES. BECAUSE OUR DECISION OF JULY 18 MAKES NO SUCH DISTINCTION BUT APPLIES THE SAME RULE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE TRAINING IS RECEIVED IN OR OUTSIDE THE GOVERNMENT, YOU CONSIDER THAT THAT DECISION SHOULD BE MODIFIED.

IT IS OUR VIEW THAT ATTENDANCE AT THE COLLEGE FOR A PROLONGED PERIOD (10 MONTHS) DURING WHICH THE EMPLOYEES CONCERNED WOULD CONTINUE IN A PAY STATUS BUT RENDER NONE OF THEIR USUAL DUTIES IS A MATTER OF SUFFICIENT DOUBT TO REQUIRE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION. THE CONCLUSION IN OUR DECISION OF JULY 18 IS NOT NOVEL. AS FAR BACK AS 1932 WE HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY THE PAYMENT OF EXPENSES OF AN EMPLOYEE INCIDENT TO HIS ATTENDANCE AT A COURSE OF INSTRUCTION CONDUCTED BY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY WOULD NOT BE AUTHORIZED. SEE DECISION OF JANUARY 6, 1936, A-68979, 15 COMP. GEN. 585, TO THE SAME EFFECT, WE STATED:

"IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THIS OFFICE THAT THE ATTENDANCE AT A COLLEGE OR OTHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION, EITHER FOR THE EMPLOYEE'S OWN IMPROVEMENT OR FOR THE GOOD OF THE SERVICE, IS NOT, ORDINARILY, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE APPOINTMENT OR DUTIES OF A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE AND THAT SUCH EMPLOYEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED EITHER TO COMPENSATION OR TO REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL OR OTHER EXPENSES WHILE SO OCCUPIED AND RENDERING NO SERVICE TO THE GOVERNMENT. 2 COMP. GEN. 17; 6 ID. 15. THE FACT THAT THE INSTRUCTION IS TO BE GIVEN BY A FEDERAL AGENCY DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE APPLICATION OF A DIFFERENT RULE. * * *"

SINCE THE DATE OF THOSE DECISIONS WE HAVE AUTHORIZED THE PAYMENT FROM GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS OF AN AGENCY OF THE COST OF EMPLOYEE TRAINING AT PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS PROVIDED SUCH TRAINING IS (1) SPECIAL IN NATURE AND OF LIMITED DURATION, (2) ESSENTIAL TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE APPROPRIATION WAS MADE, AND (3) IS NOT OF A TYPE WHICH THE EMPLOYEE NORMALLY WOULD BE EXPECTED TO PROCURE AT HIS OWN EXPENSE. THE EFFECT OF OUR DECISION OF JULY 18 WAS ONCE AGAIN TO MAKE THE SAME RULE APPLICABLE TO IN-SERVICE TRAINING THAT IS APPLICABLE TO TRAINING RECEIVED FROM PRIVATE SOURCES. IT IS OUR VIEW THAT AGENCIES SHOULD OBTAIN EXPRESS STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION TO EMPLOYEES DURING PROLONGED PERIODS OF ABSENCE FROM THEIR REGULAR DUTIES WHILE ATTENDING TRAINING COURSES, WHETHER THOSE COURSES ARE CONDUCTED BY GOVERNMENT OR PRIVATE ACTIVITIES. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONSIDER OUR PREVIOUS RULING UPON THIS CASE TO HAVE BEEN CORRECT.

ON THE OTHER HAND, BECAUSE OF THE PARTICULAR NATURE OF THE COURSE AT THE INDUSTRIAL COLLEGE AND THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE PARTICIPATED IN IT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND WILL SEEK LEGISLATION AT THE NEXT SESSION OF CONGRESS TO OBTAIN SPECIAL STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, WE WILL WITHHOLD FURTHER ..END