B-128953, OCT. 2, 1956

B-128953: Oct 2, 1956

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

WAS RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING LEAVE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 2. WHILE TRAVEL WAS AUTHORIZED BETWEEN PEARL HARBOR AND SAN BRUNO. ASSUME NO ADDITIONAL EXPENSE WAS INCURRED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS A RESULT OF THIS FACT. WE UNDERSTAND BOTH VALLEJO AND SAN BRUNO ARE INCORPORATED. CASEY AND HIS FAMILY WERE SCHEDULED FOR RETURN TRANSPORTATION TO PEARL HARBOR VIA MATS. THE CHECK-IN TIME AT THE MATS TERMINAL WAS PRIOR TO 6:00 A.M. HE WAS ADVISED THAT THE GREYHOUND BUS DEPARTED FROM THE FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING. THE SCHEDULED FLIGHT WAS CANCELED AND HE WAS REQUIRED TO STAND BY FOR THE FIRST AVAILABLE FLIGHT WHICH WAS AT :35 A.M. HAS REFERENCE TO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY IN WHICH THE MEMBER RESIDES OR TO THE METROPOLITAN AREA IN WHICH SUCH CITY IS LOCATED.

B-128953, OCT. 2, 1956

TO LIEUTENANT R. S. CORYELL:

WITH YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 16, 1956, REFERENCE L20 SER 660-13, FORWARDED HERE AUGUST 10, 1956, BY THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, JAG:II:3:WEH:VCW, YOU SUBMIT THREE RECLAIM VOUCHERS AND ASK WHETHER PAYMENT THEREOF MAY BE MADE UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS HEREINAFTER RELATED.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT KENDALL F. CASEY, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PEARL HARBOR NAVAL SHIPYARD, WHO HAD COMPLETED ONE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AND SIGNED A RENEWAL AGREEMENT FOR AN ADDITIONAL TOUR OF DUTY, WAS RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING LEAVE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 2, 1946, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 31, 1954, 68 STAT. 1008.

WHILE TRAVEL WAS AUTHORIZED BETWEEN PEARL HARBOR AND SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA, EVIDENTLY THE EMPLOYEE AND HIS FAMILY TRAVELED TO VALLEJO. ASSUME NO ADDITIONAL EXPENSE WAS INCURRED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS A RESULT OF THIS FACT. WE UNDERSTAND BOTH VALLEJO AND SAN BRUNO ARE INCORPORATED. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT MR. CASEY AND HIS FAMILY WERE SCHEDULED FOR RETURN TRANSPORTATION TO PEARL HARBOR VIA MATS, FROM TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA, ON AUGUST 30, 1955, FLIGHT TIME 8:00 A.M. THE CHECK-IN TIME AT THE MATS TERMINAL WAS PRIOR TO 6:00 A.M. AND HE WAS ADVISED THAT THE GREYHOUND BUS DEPARTED FROM THE FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, AT 8:00 P.M., AUGUST 29. HE AND HIS FAMILY APPARENTLY TRAVELED FROM VALLEJO TO SAN FRANCISCO THENCE BY NAVY BUS FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE ON AUGUST 29, ARRIVING AT 10:45 P.M. THE SCHEDULED FLIGHT WAS CANCELED AND HE WAS REQUIRED TO STAND BY FOR THE FIRST AVAILABLE FLIGHT WHICH WAS AT :35 A.M., AUGUST 31.

YOU POINT OUT THAT QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THE PHRASE "PLACES OF ACTUAL RESIDENCE" IN SECTION 7 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 31, 1954, ABOVE, HAS REFERENCE TO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY IN WHICH THE MEMBER RESIDES OR TO THE METROPOLITAN AREA IN WHICH SUCH CITY IS LOCATED. YOU SAY THAT TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE IS WITHIN THE SAME METROPOLITAN AREA AS VALLEJO AND, THEREFORE, IF THE LATTER CONSTRUCTION WERE APPLIED, ENTITLEMENT TO PER DIEM WOULD NOT COMMENCE UNTIL MR. CASEY'S FLIGHT ACTUALLY LEFT TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE ON AUGUST 31, WHICH WAS TWO DAYS AFTER HE AND HIS FAMILY, AS DIRECTED, DEPARTED FROM THEIR RESIDENCE AT VALLEJO. YOU ALSO POINT OUT THAT PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS DEFINES LIMITS OF AN EMPLOYEE'S OFFICIAL STATION AS BEING "* * * THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OR TOWN IN WHICH THE * * * EMPLOYEE IS STATIONED * * *" AND THAT THE TENOR OF OUR DECISIONS, 22 COMP. GEN. 515 AND 27 ID. 382, IS TO DENY PER DIEM TO EMPLOYEES WHO TRAVEL ANYWHERE WITHIN THE SAME METROPOLITAN AREA OF THEIR OFFICIAL STATION OR HOME.

CONSEQUENTLY, YOU ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE PAYMENT OF PER DIEM TO MR. CASEY UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ABOVE:

A. WOULD ENTITLEMENT TO PER DIEM IN THIS CASE COMMENCE FROM THE TIME MR. CASEY LEFT THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF VALLEJO?

B. IF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION A IS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, WOULD MR. CASEY ALSO BE REGARDED AS BEING IN A DUTY STATUS (AS OPPOSED TO AN ANNUAL LEAVE STATUS) COMMENCING FROM THE TIME HE LEFT THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF VALLEJO?

UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7, ABOVE, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT MR. CASEY IS ENTITLED TO THE EXPENSES OF ROUND-TRIP TRAVEL FOR HIMSELF AND TRANSPORTATION OF HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY BECAUSE HE HAS SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED ONE TOUR OF DUTY AND HAS RETURNED TO HIS ACTUAL PLACE OF RESIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING LEAVE PRIOR TO SERVING ANOTHER TOUR OF DUTY. TITLE VI, SECTION 27 (B) EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9805, AS ADDED BY BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-4, DATED MAY 2, 1955, SPECIFIES THAT SUCH TRAVEL EXPENSES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 203 (E) OF THE ANNUAL AND SICK LEAVE ACT OF 1951, 65 STAT. 680, THE LEAVE GRANTED ADMINISTRATIVELY IS EXCLUSIVE OF THE TIME ACTUALLY AND NECESSARILY OCCUPIED IN GOING TO AND FROM HIS POINT OF DUTY AND SUCH TIME AS MAY BE NECESSARILY OCCUPIED IN AWAITING SAILING OR FLIGHT.

THE PHRASE "PLACES OF ACTUAL RESIDENCE" IS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR PER DIEM PURPOSES AS THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OR TOWN IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEE RESIDES. SEE PARAGRAPH 3 AND 48B., STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS. UPON COMMENCEMENT OF THE TRAVEL AT VALLEJO THE EMPLOYEE WAS COMPLYING WITH THE OFFICIAL ORDERS AND WAS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY AND, THEREFORE, WAS IN A TRAVEL OR DUTY STATUS AS CONTRASTED TO ANNUAL LEAVE STATUS, THUS ENTITLING HIM TO PER DIEM FOR THE PERIOD HERE INVOLVED. CONCERNING 27 COMP. GEN. 382 SEE PARAGRAPH 8A OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS; CF. 28 COMP. GEN. 192.

QUESTIONS A. AND B. ARE ANSWERED ACCORDINGLY.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT KENNETH W. SUTTON SHARED A TAXICAB FROM TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE TO SAN FRANCISCO, WITH FOUR OTHER PASSENGERS, AT AN INDIVIDUAL COST OF $5.15, WHILE COMMERCIAL TAXICAB SERVICE AND OCCASIONAL NON- SCHEDULED GOVERNMENT BUS ACCOMMODATIONS WERE AVAILABLE TO FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA, FROM WHICH POINT REGULARLY SCHEDULED BUSES PROCEEDED TO SAN FRANCISCO.

THE THIRD VOUCHER IN FAVOR OF ASAMU OGATA REPRESENTS PAYMENT OF TAXICAB FARES IN THE AMOUNT OF $30.50. MR. OGATA, THE RECORD SHOWS, ARRIVED AT THE CHICAGO AIRPORT AT 6:30 A.M. ON OCTOBER 2, 1955, AND BEING UNFAMILIAR WITH CHICAGO AND ENVIRONS, HE HIRED A TAXICAB FROM THE AIRPORT TO THE NORTH SHORE STATION, $4.50, THEN FROM THAT POINT TO THE U.S. NAVAL TRAINING CENTER, GREAT LAKES, ILLINOIS, HIS TEMPORARY DUTY STATION, $13 (RECEIPT SUBMITTED), AS WELL AS FOR THE RETURN TRIP ON OCTOBER 22, 1955, $13, A TOTAL OF $30.50. THE RECORD SHOWS THERE ARE REGULARLY SCHEDULED TRAINS BETWEEN CHICAGO AND GREAT LAKES.

BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

A. ARE THE TAXICAB FARES RECLAIMED BY MR. SUTTON AND MR. OGATA ALLOWABLE IN THEIR ENTIRETY?

B. IF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION A IS IN THE NEGATIVE, WOULD SUCH TAXICAB FARES BE FOR ALLOWANCE IF APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL WERE SHOWN ON THE SPACE PROVIDED ON THE FACE OF THE STANDARD FORM 1012?

C. IF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION B IS IN THE NEGATIVE, YOUR DECISION IS REQUESTED AS TO WHAT PORTION OF THE TAXI FARE EXPENSES INCURRED CAN PROPERLY BE REIMBURSED TO THE CLAIMANTS IN THESE CASES?

SECTIONS 11 AND 11 (B) OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS READ, AS FOLLOWS:

"11. SPECIAL CONVEYANCE.--- THE HIRE OF BOAT, AUTOMOBILE, TAXICAB, AIRCRAFT, LIVERY, OR OTHER SUCH CONVEYANCE WILL BE ALLOWED IF THE USE OF SUCH FACILITIES IS AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED AS ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT WHENEVER THE EMPLOYEE OR OTHERS RENDERING SERVICE TO THE GOVERNMENT IS ENGAGED ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS WITHIN OR OUTSIDE HIS DESIGNATED POST OF DUTY. IN THE CASE OF HIRE OF TAXICABS, REIMBURSEMENT MAY BE ALLOWED FOR THE ACTUAL FARE PLUS TIPS OF 10 CENTS WHERE THE FARE IS $1 OR LESS OR 10 PERCENT OF THE FARE INCREASED TO THE NEXT MULTIPLE OF 5 WHERE THE FARE EXCEEDS $1.

"B. WHERE TWO OR MORE PERSONS TRAVEL TOGETHER BY MEANS OF SUCH SPECIAL CONVEYANCE, THAT FACT, TOGETHER WITH THE NAMES OF THOSE ACCOMPANYING HIM AND THE NAME OF THEIR EMPLOYING AGENCY, MUST BE STATED BY EACH TRAVELER ON HIS TRAVEL VOUCHER.'

UNDER THE FOREGOING REGULATIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TAXICABS USED BY MESSRS. SUTTON AND OGATA MUST BE CONSIDERED AS SPECIAL CONVEYANCES AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF ADVANTAGE TO THE GOVERNMENT AS REQUIRED, NO BASIS EXISTS FOR PAYMENT OF THE RECLAIM VOUCHERS. SEE 31 COMP. GEN. 304, 34 ID. 81. UPON THE PRESENT RECORD, MR. OGATA IS ONLY ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF THE COST OF RAIL FARE FROM CHICAGO TO GREAT LAKES AND RETURN.

SHOULD ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION BE SECURED AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 11, HOWEVER, THE TAXICAB FARES MAY BE ALLOWED, IF OTHERWISE PROPER, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABSENCE OF RECEIPTS.

QUESTIONS A., B. AND C. ARE ANSWERED ACCORDINGLY.