B-126900, MAR. 27, 1956

B-126900: Mar 27, 1956

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

THAT AMOUNT WAS DISALLOWED ADMINISTRATIVELY BECAUSE THE ABOVE PERIOD OF TIME WAS IN EXCESS OF THE NECESSARY TIME REQUIRED FOR TRAVEL BETWEEN WASHINGTON. THE EMPLOYEE AND HIS DEPENDENTS WERE SCHEDULED TO SAIL FROM SAN FRANCISCO. WAS AMENDED TO PERMIT PERFORMANCE OF TEMPORARY DUTY AT SEATTLE. PER DIEM WAS AUTHORIZED FOR MR. HIS DEPENDENTS WERE AUTHORIZED PER DIEM WHEN IN A TRAVEL STATUS. RESULTING IN THE BASIC QUESTION IN THIS CASE OF WHETHER HIS DEPENDENTS DURING THAT PERIOD WERE IN A TRAVEL STATUS SO AS TO BE ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENT OF PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE. IN EARLY MARCH IT WAS DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD BE DESIRABLE FOR ME TO SPEND APPROXIMATELY FIVE DAYS ON THE WEST COAST CONTACTING ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONNECTED WITH AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND MARKETING AND WHO DEALT WITH BUSINESS PEOPLE IN JAPAN.

B-126900, MAR. 27, 1956

TO MR. A. M. FLATEQUAL, AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICER, FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE:

YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 2, 1956, TRANSMITTED A RECLAIM VOUCHER IN FAVOR OF WILLIAM D. TERMOHLEN REPRESENTING PER DIEM FOR HIS DEPENDENTS FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 5 TO 9, 1955, IN THE AMOUNT OF $90--- 5 DAYS AT $9 PER DAY FOR TWO DEPENDENTS. THAT AMOUNT WAS DISALLOWED ADMINISTRATIVELY BECAUSE THE ABOVE PERIOD OF TIME WAS IN EXCESS OF THE NECESSARY TIME REQUIRED FOR TRAVEL BETWEEN WASHINGTON, D.C., THE OLD DUTY STATION, AND TOKYO, JAPAN, THE NEW DUTY STATION. YOU ASK WHETHER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HEREINAFTER RELATED THE RECLAIM VOUCHER MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.

THE EMPLOYEE AND HIS DEPENDENTS WERE SCHEDULED TO SAIL FROM SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, ON APRIL 10, 1955, FOR TOKYO, JAPAN, THE EMPLOYEE'S NEW DUTY STATION. TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION NO. 338-/FAS) DATED FEBRUARY 25, 1955, WAS AMENDED TO PERMIT PERFORMANCE OF TEMPORARY DUTY AT SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, AND PORTLAND, OREGON. PER DIEM WAS AUTHORIZED FOR MR. TERMOHLEN AT $9, EXCEPT $4 WHILE ON BOARD SHIP WHERE THE PRICE OF PASSAGE INCLUDES MEALS. HIS DEPENDENTS WERE AUTHORIZED PER DIEM WHEN IN A TRAVEL STATUS.

WHILE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF TEMPORARY DUTY, APRIL 5 TO 9, MR. TERMOHLEN'S DEPENDENTS REMAINED IN SAN FRANCISCO, RESULTING IN THE BASIC QUESTION IN THIS CASE OF WHETHER HIS DEPENDENTS DURING THAT PERIOD WERE IN A TRAVEL STATUS SO AS TO BE ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENT OF PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE.

MR. TERMOHLEN, IN A MEMORANDUM DATED JANUARY 4, 1956, FURNISHES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF HIS RECLAIM FOR THE $90 PER DIEM:

"AS ISSUED, THE TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION, IN REFERENCE TO MY WIFE AND MOTHER STATED PER DIEM WHEN IN TRAVEL STATUS. IN EARLY MARCH IT WAS DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD BE DESIRABLE FOR ME TO SPEND APPROXIMATELY FIVE DAYS ON THE WEST COAST CONTACTING ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONNECTED WITH AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND MARKETING AND WHO DEALT WITH BUSINESS PEOPLE IN JAPAN. CONSEQUENTLY, MY TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION WAS SO AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR THIS ACTIVITY. THE PURPOSE OF HAVING ME STOP THIS EXTRA TIME ON THE WEST COAST WAS TO VISIT THESE VARIOUS GROUPS AND PERSONS WITH THE IDEA THAT IT WOULD MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO DO A GOOD JOB FOR THE GOVERNMENT AS AGRICULTURAL ATTACHE IN TOKYO. ALL ONE HAS TO DO TO KNOW WHETHER THIS EXTRA PERIOD OF TIME ON THE WEST COAST WAS DESIRABLE WOULD BE TO CONTACT THE PEOPLE IN THAT AREA WHO WOULD INDICATE THAT MY STOPPING THERE MORE THAN PAID DIVIDENDS.

"I COULD HAVE ORIGINALLY DEPARTED FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., ON APRIL 5 AND ARRIVED IN SAN FRANCISCO ON THE 9TH AND DEPARTED THE NEXT MORNING FOR JAPAN. THIS HAD BEEN MY ORIGINAL PLAN, AND WHEN THE CHANGE IN MY SCHEDULE WAS DETERMINED TO BE DESIRABLE, I MOVED OUT OF MY HOME, WHICH HAD BEEN SOLD, ON MARCH 31, SO THAT I COULD LEAVE ON APRIL 1. IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF MY HOUSE, I COULD HAVE STAYED UNTIL APRIL 4 WITHOUT ANY DIFFICULTY. IT CAN, OF COURSE, BE ARGUED THAT I COULD HAVE GONE ON APRIL 1 AND MY FAMILY COULD HAVE FOLLOWED, LEAVING APRIL 4, BUT IT WOULD HAVE WORKED A DISTINCT HARDSHIP ON MY WIFE AND MY AGED MOTHER IF I HAD LEFT THEM TO TAKE CARE OF ALL THE PACKING AND MOVING OF OUR FURNITURE AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS, AND SO THERE SEEMED TO BE ONLY ONE LOGICAL CONCLUSION, NAMELY, FOR THEM TO ACCOMPANY ME TO THE WEST COAST, AND BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN PLANS AND THE DESIRABILITY OF MY MAKING THE CONTACTS ON THE WEST COAST, I HAD ASSUMED THAT THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION ABOUT ALL OF US BEING IN TRAVEL STATUS, BECAUSE WITHOUT A HOME AND WITH MY CARRYING ON OFFICIAL DUTIES I CERTAINLY WAS IN TRAVEL STATUS.'

AS POINTED OUT BY MR. TERMOHLAN, SEVERAL PLANS COULD HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED BUT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES HE CONCLUDED IT WAS BEST TO HAVE HIS DEPENDENTS ACCOMPANY HIM ASSUMING THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF HIS DEPENDENTS BEING IN A TRAVEL STATUS.

WHILE THE FOREIGN SERVICE TRAVEL REGULATIONS AUTHORIZE PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE TO AN EMPLOYEE FOR TEMPORARY DUTY PERFORMED EN ROUTE TO HIS NEW DUTY STATION, THERE IS NO SIMILAR PROVISION COVERING PER DIEM FOR DEPENDENTS UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. GENERALLY, THE REGULATIONS CONTEMPLATE THAT THE PER DIEM SHOULD NOT EXCEED THAT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED ON UNINTERRUPTED TRAVEL BY A USUALLY TRAVELED ROUTE.

ACCORDINGLY, IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT THE EMPLOYEE'S DEPENDENTS WERE NOT IN A TRAVEL STATUS IN SAN FRANCISCO, APRIL 5 TO 9, SO AS TO WARRANT THE PAYMENT OF PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE FOR SUCH DEPENDENTS DURING THAT PERIOD. B-125767, DECEMBER 15, 1955.