B-127878, JUL. 30, 1956
Highlights
EXETER WHICH WAS BOUND FOR NEW YORK. YOUR CLAIM FOR THIS EXCESS COST WAS DISALLOWED BOTH ADMINISTRATIVELY AND BY OUR PREVIOUSLY CITED OFFICE SETTLEMENT. YOU SAY THAT IT IS UNJUST FOR AN EMPLOYEE TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL TRAVEL EXPENSES WHEN THEY WERE OFFICIALLY AUTHORIZED AND YOU INDICATE THAT IF IT WERE NOT FOR SUCH PURPORTED AUTHORIZATION YOU WOULD NOT HAVE INCURRED AS MUCH ADDITIONAL EXPENSE. INDEPENDENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED. THE ACTION OF THE EMBASSY AT TEHRAN IN PURPORTING TO AUTHORIZE THE EXTRA EXPENSE TO BE BORNE BY THE GOVERNMENT WAS IN CONTRAVENTION OF 190 SGTR 10 AND THUS INVALID. NONE WAS EVER GIVEN. YOU EXPLAIN THAT THE EXPENSE WAS INCURRED IN ANTICIPATION OF YOUR RECEIVING ORDERS TRANSFERRING YOU FROM TEHRAN TO ANOTHER OVERSEAS POST. 180 FSTR 2.1 PROVIDES THAT "ALL TRAVEL.
B-127878, JUL. 30, 1956
TO MR. WILLIAM S. KRASON:
YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 17, 1956, REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT DATED MARCH 9, 1956, WHICH PARTIALLY DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR EXPENSES INCURRED INCIDENT TO HOME LEAVE TRAVEL PERFORMED BY YOU AND YOUR FAMILY AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE FROM TEHRAN, IRAN, TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER ORDERS DATED OCTOBER 4, 1954.
IT APPEARS THAT YOU TRAVELED FROM TEHRAN TO BEIRUT, LEBANON, BY AIRLINE AND THAT AT BEIRUT YOU EMBARKED UPON THE S.S. EXETER WHICH WAS BOUND FOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK. PURSUANT TO PREVIOUS PLAN, HOWEVER, YOU DISEMBARKED AT GENOA, ITALY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING ANNUAL LEAVE ON THE CONTINENT OF EUROPE. AFTER THE PERIOD OF LEAVE, AND UNDER PURPORTED AUTHORIZATION FROM THE AMERICAN EMBASSY AT TEHRAN, YOU PROCEEDED FROM GENOA TO NEW YORK ON THE S.S. INDEPENDENCE, THE FARE ON WHICH EXCEEDED THAT FOR TRAVEL ON THE S.S. EXETER BY $222.65. YOUR CLAIM FOR THIS EXCESS COST WAS DISALLOWED BOTH ADMINISTRATIVELY AND BY OUR PREVIOUSLY CITED OFFICE SETTLEMENT. YOU SAY THAT IT IS UNJUST FOR AN EMPLOYEE TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL TRAVEL EXPENSES WHEN THEY WERE OFFICIALLY AUTHORIZED AND YOU INDICATE THAT IF IT WERE NOT FOR SUCH PURPORTED AUTHORIZATION YOU WOULD NOT HAVE INCURRED AS MUCH ADDITIONAL EXPENSE.
YOUR ACTION IN DISEMBARKING FROM THE S.S. EXETER AT GENOA FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING ANNUAL LEAVE CONSTITUTED AN INTERRUPTION OF TRAVEL BY DIRECT ROUTE FOR PERSONAL CONVENIENCE; CONSEQUENTLY, UNDER 190 SGTR 10 ANY EXTRA EXPENSE INCURRED THEREBY MUST BE BORNE BY YOU. FURTHERMORE, IF YOU HAD NOT INTERRUPTED YOUR TRAVEL ON THE S.S. EXETER FOR THE PREVIOUSLY PLANNED ANNUAL LEAVE, NO OPPORTUNITY FOR SAILING ON THE S.S. INDEPENDENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ACTION OF THE EMBASSY AT TEHRAN IN PURPORTING TO AUTHORIZE THE EXTRA EXPENSE TO BE BORNE BY THE GOVERNMENT WAS IN CONTRAVENTION OF 190 SGTR 10 AND THUS INVALID. SEE 1 FSM III 116.
YOU ALSO REQUEST RECONSIDERATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE AMOUNT OF $80 REPRESENTING THE COST OF PACKING FOR EXPORT CERTAIN HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS PURCHASED BY YOU WHILE ON HOME LEAVE IN THE UNITED STATES. WHILE YOU ADMIT THAT YOU HAD NO OFFICIAL AUTHORIZATION TO INCUR SUCH EXPENSE AND THAT IN VIEW OF YOUR SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER TO WASHINGTON, D.C., NONE WAS EVER GIVEN, YOU EXPLAIN THAT THE EXPENSE WAS INCURRED IN ANTICIPATION OF YOUR RECEIVING ORDERS TRANSFERRING YOU FROM TEHRAN TO ANOTHER OVERSEAS POST. 180 FSTR 2.1 PROVIDES THAT "ALL TRAVEL, TRANSPORTATION, AND RELATED EXPENSES PERFORMED OR INCURRED UNDER THESE REGULATIONS SHALL BE AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED IN WRITING PRIOR TO PAYMENT OR REIMBURSEMENT FROM GOVERNMENT FUNDS.' AS NO SUCH AUTHORIZATION OR APPROVAL WAS EVER GIVEN, IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUCH EXPENSES MAY NOT BE MADE.