B-137422, NOV 5, 1958

B-137422: Nov 5, 1958

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

RETURNS FOR RECONSIDERATION THE FILE WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 24. IT NOW APPEARS FROM YOUR LETTER THAT CLAIMANT'S STATEMENTS ON THE VOUCHER - INDICATING "ALL TRAVEL" AUTHORIZED WAS PERFORMED BY "PRIVATE OWNED AUTO. " AND THAT A "PERSONALLY OWNED STATION WAGON" WAS USED FOR "SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS" - ACTUALLY REFER TO ONE AND THE SAME VEHICLE WHICH WAS USED ON THE SAME TRIP FOR WHICH HE CLAIMS PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE. OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 24 WAS PREDICATED UPON THE MISLEADING STATEMENTS OF CLAIMANT. IN ESSENCE SETTLES THE PROBLEM WE HAVE HERE. IS NOT CONTROLLING. IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUTATION FOR PROPERTY TRANSPORTED IN THE SAME VEHICLE ON THE SAME TRIP UNDER SECTION 1 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES ACT OF 1946.

B-137422, NOV 5, 1958

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

EMMETT A. ELLINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE:

YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 6, 1958, RETURNS FOR RECONSIDERATION THE FILE WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1958, B-137422, TO YOU. YOUR LETTER NOW EXPRESSLY ADVISES US THAT CLAIMANT DID NOT USE TWO VEHICLES TO TRANSPORT HIMSELF, HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY, AND HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS FROM ELKO, NEVADA, TO WINNEMUCCA, NEVADA, ON JUNE 2, 1958. IT NOW APPEARS FROM YOUR LETTER THAT CLAIMANT'S STATEMENTS ON THE VOUCHER - INDICATING "ALL TRAVEL" AUTHORIZED WAS PERFORMED BY "PRIVATE OWNED AUTO," AND THAT A "PERSONALLY OWNED STATION WAGON" WAS USED FOR "SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS" - ACTUALLY REFER TO ONE AND THE SAME VEHICLE WHICH WAS USED ON THE SAME TRIP FOR WHICH HE CLAIMS PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE, MILEAGE FOR THE DISTANCE (126 MILES) TRAVELED, PLUS THE COMMUTATION OF $112.52 - 1,710 POUNDS AT $6.58 PER HUNDRED WEIGHT - FOR HIS EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION OF HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS.

OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 24 WAS PREDICATED UPON THE MISLEADING STATEMENTS OF CLAIMANT, NOT CLARIFIED IN YOUR ORIGINAL SUBMISSION OF AUGUST 18; HOWEVER, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE OR ACTUAL FACTS NOW PRESENTED SHOULD FORM A PROPER BASIS FOR DENIAL OF THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED CLAIM.

THE DECISION OF APRIL 10, 1957, B-130874, REFERRED TO BY YOU ON AUGUST 18, 1958, IN ESSENCE SETTLES THE PROBLEM WE HAVE HERE. AN EARLIER VIEW OF THE FACTS, SUCH AS IN B-122948 DATED MAY 11, 1955, IS NOT CONTROLLING. B-130874 WE REGARDED THE AUTHORITY FOR PAYMENT OF MILEAGE FOR THE AUTHORIZED TRAVEL OF THE EMPLOYEE AS BEING SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE AUTHORITY TO REIMBURSE THE EMPLOYEE ON A COMMUTED BASIS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS.

THE PAYMENT OF SUCH MILEAGE UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE TRAVEL EXPENSE ACT OF 1949, AS AMENDED, 5 U.S.C. 837, FOR OFFICIAL TRAVEL, IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUTATION FOR PROPERTY TRANSPORTED IN THE SAME VEHICLE ON THE SAME TRIP UNDER SECTION 1 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES ACT OF 1946, 5 U.S.C. 73-1. COMPARE 32 COMP. GEN. 286, ID. 321, AND B 121424, DECEMBER 2, 1954, WHICH CONSIDERED THE EFFECT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10196 AMENDING SECTION 12(A) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9805. THE RECORD DOES NOT CONTAIN A SHOWING THAT THE EMPLOYEE DID NOT INCUR ADDITIONAL COSTS BECAUSE OF THE 1,710 POUNDS HE TRANSPORTED UNDER HIS TRAVEL ORDERS, AND IT REASONABLY MAY BE CONCLUDED THAT ADDITIONAL COSTS WERE NECESSARILY INCURRED BECAUSE OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS.

ACCORDINGLY, THE VOUCHER, WITH ENCLOSURES, IS RETURNED AND MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT IF OTHERWISE CORRECT.