A-35611, MARCH 13, 1931, 10 COMP. GEN. 408

A-35611: Mar 13, 1931

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

THIS AMOUNT WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY DEDUCTED FROM HIS TRAVEL VOUCHER COVERING THE PERIOD OCTOBER 12 TO NOVEMBER 23. IN SUPPORT OF HIS REQUEST FOR REVIEW THE CLAIMANT STATES: YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE FACT THAT I LEFT SACRAMENTO BY AIRPLANE AT 8.50 P.M. ARRIVED IN CHICAGO APPROXIMATELY THIRTY HOURS PRIOR TO THE TIME I WOULD HAVE ARRIVED HAD I TRAVELLED BY THE FASTEST RAILROAD SERVICE. THREE NIGHTS ARE CONSUMED IN THE TRAVEL BETWEEN SACRAMENTO AND CHICAGO BY TRAIN. NOR FOR ONE DAY'S PER DIEM FOR WHICH I WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED HAD I TRAVELLED BY RAIL. FURTHERMORE I ARRIVED IN WASHINGTON SO THAT I WAS ABLE TO GIVE TO THE U.S. MY SALARY AT THAT TIME WAS $5. IN THIS CASE THERE WAS. IN ORDER TO EFFECT THIS SAVING I HAVE BEEN ASSESSED THE SUM OF $3.65.

A-35611, MARCH 13, 1931, 10 COMP. GEN. 408

TRAVELING EXPENSES - AIRPLANE TRANSPORTATION A DIRECT SAVING TO THE GOVERNMENT IN THE MATTER OF ACTUAL EXPENSES OF SUBSISTENCE OR PER DIEM IN LIEU THEREOF BY REASON OF THE SHORTER TIME REQUIRED ON AN AIRPLANE JOURNEY MAY PROPERLY BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE COST OF TRAVEL BY AIRPLANE EXCEEDED THE COST BY RAILROAD. THE RELATIVE VALUE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE SERVICES OF AN EMPLOYEE IN A TRAVEL STATUS AS COMPARED WITH SUCH SERVICES AT HEADQUARTERS DUE TO THE SHORTER TIME REQUIRED BY THE USE OF AN AIRPLANE FOR OFFICIAL TRAVEL IT TOO PROBLEMATICAL TO PERMIT OF ITS CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE COST OF AIRPLANE TRANSPORTATION EXCEEDS THE COST OF TRAVEL BY RAIL.

DECISION BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL, MARCH 13, 1931:

C. L. DAWSON, UNITED STATES VETERANS' BUREAU, HAS REQUESTED REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT OF FEBRUARY 10, 1931, DISALLOWING HIS CLAIM FOR $3.65, BEING THE EXCESS COST OF AIRPLANE TRANSPORTATION OVER RAIL TRANSPORTATION FOR A PORTION OF THE JOURNEY BETWEEN SACRAMENTO, CALIF., AND WASHINGTON, D.C. THIS AMOUNT WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY DEDUCTED FROM HIS TRAVEL VOUCHER COVERING THE PERIOD OCTOBER 12 TO NOVEMBER 23, 1930, BEFORE PAYMENT. IT APPEARS THAT THE CLAIMANT USED AN AIRPLANE BETWEEN SACRAMENTO AND CHICAGO, TRAVELING THE REST OF THE WAY BY RAIL. IN SUPPORT OF HIS REQUEST FOR REVIEW THE CLAIMANT STATES:

YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE FACT THAT I LEFT SACRAMENTO BY AIRPLANE AT 8.50 P.M. NOVEMBER 21, AND ARRIVED IN CHICAGO 9.00 P.M. NOVEMBER 22. ARRIVED IN CHICAGO APPROXIMATELY THIRTY HOURS PRIOR TO THE TIME I WOULD HAVE ARRIVED HAD I TRAVELLED BY THE FASTEST RAILROAD SERVICE. THREE NIGHTS ARE CONSUMED IN THE TRAVEL BETWEEN SACRAMENTO AND CHICAGO BY TRAIN. I MADE NO CHARGE FOR PULLMAN TIPS ($0.75) FOR THE TRAVEL BETWEEN SACRAMENTO AND CHICAGO, NOR FOR ONE DAY'S PER DIEM FOR WHICH I WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED HAD I TRAVELLED BY RAIL. THIS RESULTED IN SAVING $6.75 OR A SAVING TO THE GOVERNMENT ON THE ENTIRE COST OF THE TRIP OF $3.10. FURTHERMORE I ARRIVED IN WASHINGTON SO THAT I WAS ABLE TO GIVE TO THE U.S. VETERANS' BUREAU ONE DAY'S EXTRA SERVICE. MY SALARY AT THAT TIME WAS $5,000 PER ANNUM, WHICH WOULD AMOUNT TO APPROXIMATELY $16.00 PER DAY.

IN THIS CASE THERE WAS, THEREFORE, A SAVINGS OF $19.10 TO THE GOVERNMENT. IN ORDER TO EFFECT THIS SAVING I HAVE BEEN ASSESSED THE SUM OF $3.65. THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM CANNOT BE PLACED ON ANY GROUNDS OF EQUITY OR JUSTICE. I CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO EXPEND THE SUM OF $3.65 IN ORDER TO EFFECT A SAVING TO THE GOVERNMENT OF $19.10.

YOU POINT TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO JUSTIFY OR SUPPORT A CONTENTION THAT THERE EXISTED AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING TRAVEL BY AIRPLANE. THIS DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE BE IN POINT FOR THE SAME REASON THAT THE ULTIMATE RESULT IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SAVED MONEY BY THE FACT THAT I TRAVELLED BY PLANE.

IT SEEMS A BIT UNREASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT MY DUTIES TO THE GOVERNMENT ARE BETTER PERFORMED RIDING IN A PULLMAN CAR THAN BY DOING ACTUAL WORK IN THE OFFICE. TO FOLLOW YOUR RULE WOULD BE TO HOLD THAT MY SERVICES ARE MORE VALUABLE IN A PULLMAN CAR THAN THEY ARE IN THE OFFICE. WHILE THIS MAY BE A FACT, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT I AM PAID MY SALARY ON THAT ASSUMPTION. RECONSIDERATION OF THE CLAIM IS, THEREFORE, REQUESTED.

IN SO FAR AS THE RELATIVE VALUE TO THE UNITED STATES OF THE CLAIMANT'S SERVICES WHILE IN A TRAVEL STATUS, AS COMPARED WITH HIS SERVICES AT THE VETERANS' BUREAU IN WASHINGTON, D.C., IS CONCERNED IT NEED ONLY BE SAID THAT THE ACTUAL VALUE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE TIME SAVED BY THE USE OF AIRPLANE TRANSPORTATION IS TOO PROBLEMATICAL TO PERMIT ITS CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE COST OF AIRPLANE TRANSPORTATION EXCEEDS THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION BY RAIL. 10 COMP. GEN. 201. A DIRECT SAVING TO THE GOVERNMENT IN THE MATTER OF ACTUAL EXPENSES OF SUBSISTENCE, OR PER DIEM IN LIEU THEREOF, BY REASON OF THE SHORTER TIME REQUIRED ON AIRPLANE JOURNEY IS, HOWEVER, A MATTER COMPARATIVELY EASY OF DETERMINATION AND PROPERLY MAY BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN ASCERTAINING WHETHER THE COST OF TRAVEL BY AIRPLANE EXCEEDED THE COST BY TRAIN. 9 COMP. GEN. 354.

THE CLAIMANT WAS TRAVELING ON A PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE OF $6 PER DAY AND APPEARS TO HAVE SAVED THE UNITED STATES AT LEAST ONE DAY'S PER DIEM, OR $6, WHICH MORE THAN COMPENSATES FOR THE $3.65 EXCESS COST OF AIRPLANE TRANSPORTATION. UPON REVIEW THERE IS CERTIFIED DUE THE CLAIMANT $3.65.