B-147081, OCT. 16, 1961

B-147081: Oct 16, 1961

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

YOU WERE AUTHORIZED TO TRAVEL FROM BREMERHAVEN. BY A DIRECTED MODE OF TRAVEL "NOT SUBJECT TO YOUR ELECTION OF AN INDIRECT ROUTE OR ALTERNATE MODE OF TRAVEL AND AUTHORIZED ALLOWANCES AND SALARY ARE LIMITED ACCORDINGLY.'. SHOWS THAT YOU WERE SEPARATED FROM THE SERVICE AT HOT SPRINGS. YOU WERE PAID SALARY FOR TRAVEL TIME AND EXPENSES TO THAT LOCATION. YOU SAY IT WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE OF PERSONAL REASONS TO INTERRUPT YOUR TRAVEL AT HOT SPRINGS AS YOU THEN BELIEVED HOT SPRINGS WOULD BE A DESIRABLE PLACE TO MAKE YOUR PERMANENT HOME. "EMPLOYEE FAILING TO PERFORM RETURN TRAVEL FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEPARATION WHEN SUCH TRAVEL HAS BEEN OR MAY BE AUTHORIZED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER DUTY ASSIGNMENT AT AN OVERSEAS DUTY STATION IS ENDED. (28 COMP.

B-147081, OCT. 16, 1961

TO MR. CLARENCE C. WALKER:

YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 17, 1961, RELATES TO OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 1, 1961, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AND TRAVEL EXPENSES INCIDENT TO YOUR RETURN TRAVEL FROM OVERSEAS TO HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA.

YOU FILED A REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION FROM YOUR OVERSEAS DUTY TO BE EFFECTIVE JULY 10-15, 1959. YOU ALSO FILED A REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION ON MARCH 19, 1959, SHOWING THE PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE AS JULY 10, 1959. TRAVEL ORDER NO. A-836, DATED JUNE 12, 1959, YOU WERE AUTHORIZED TO TRAVEL FROM BREMERHAVEN, GERMANY, TO HOLLYWOOD, BY A DIRECTED MODE OF TRAVEL "NOT SUBJECT TO YOUR ELECTION OF AN INDIRECT ROUTE OR ALTERNATE MODE OF TRAVEL AND AUTHORIZED ALLOWANCES AND SALARY ARE LIMITED ACCORDINGLY.'

YOU COMMENCED TRAVEL ON JUNE 29, 1959, FROM SEMBACH, GERMANY, DEPARTING FROM BREMERHAVEN ON JULY 1, 1959, AND ARRIVING IN NEW YORK, NEW YORK, ON JULY 9, 1959. YOU TRAVELED BY A CIRCUITOUS ROUTE FOR PERSONAL REASONS FROM NEW YORK TO HOLLYWOOD, DELAYING YOUR ARRIVAL IN HOLLYWOOD APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR AFTER YOUR DEPARTURE FROM YOUR OVERSEAS DUTY STATION. AFTER A DELAY AT VARIOUS CITIES EN ROUTE, YOU ARRIVED AT HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS, ON AUGUST 7, 1959, WHERE YOU REMAINED UNTIL NOVEMBER 19, 1959. NOTIFICATION OF PERSONNEL ACTION OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1959, SHOWS THAT YOU WERE SEPARATED FROM THE SERVICE AT HOT SPRINGS, EFFECTIVE JULY 25, 1959, AND YOU WERE PAID SALARY FOR TRAVEL TIME AND EXPENSES TO THAT LOCATION. YOU NOW CLAIM SALARY AND EXPENSES FOR AN ADDITIONAL TRAVEL TIME OF EIGHT DAYS, FROM HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS, TO HOLLYWOOD.

YOU SAY IT WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE OF PERSONAL REASONS TO INTERRUPT YOUR TRAVEL AT HOT SPRINGS AS YOU THEN BELIEVED HOT SPRINGS WOULD BE A DESIRABLE PLACE TO MAKE YOUR PERMANENT HOME.

PARAGRAPHS 19D AND 19E, AFM 40-10, CHAPTER 4 THEN IN EFFECT PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

"WAIVER OF TRANSPORTATION ELIGIBILITY.

"EMPLOYEE FAILING TO PERFORM RETURN TRAVEL FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEPARATION WHEN SUCH TRAVEL HAS BEEN OR MAY BE AUTHORIZED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER DUTY ASSIGNMENT AT AN OVERSEAS DUTY STATION IS ENDED. (28 COMP. GEN. 285; 31 COMP. GEN. 389). A REASONABLE TIME MAY BE CONSIDERED NOT IN EXCESS OF 90 DAYS.

"TRAVEL NOT ACCORDING TO AUTHORIZATION.

"EMPLOYEES, FOR PERSONAL REASONS, ELECTING TO RETURN BY OTHER THAN USUALLY AUTHORIZED MODES OF TRANSPORTATION AND/OR BY CIRCUITOUS ROUTES, WITH OR WITHOUT DELAYS EN ROUTE FOR PERSONAL REASONS. USUAL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION AND DIRECT ROUTING ARE AUTHORIZED AND TRAVEL ORDERS ISSUED UNDER THESE CONDITIONS MAY INCLUDE A STATEMENT INVALIDATING THE TRAVEL ORDER IF TRAVEL TO THE AUTHORIZED DESTINATION IS NOT COMPLETED BY A REASONABLE STATED DATE.'

IN VIEW OF PARAGRAPHS 19D AND 19E OF THE AIR FORCE MANUAL, QUOTED ABOVE, THE EXPRESS LIMITATION IN YOUR TRAVEL ORDERS PROHIBITING YOUR ELECTION OF AN INDIRECT ROUTE, AND SINCE IN EXCESS OF 90 DAYS HAD ELAPSED PRIOR TO YOUR DEPARTURE FROM HOT SPRINGS, THE COMPENSATION FOR TRAVEL TIME AND TRAVEL EXPENSES FOR WHICH YOU WERE PAID TO HOT SPRINGS, THE POINT OF YOUR INTERRUPTED TRAVEL, WERE ALL TO WHICH YOU ARE ENTITLED. NO EVIDENCE IS OF RECORD HERE AS TO THE REASON FOR THE MISUNDERSTANDING WHICH LED YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THE TRAVEL EXPENSES AND SALARY FOR UNINTERRUPTED TRAVEL TO CALIFORNIA WOULD BE ALLOWED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE TIME USED TO COMPLETE THE TRIP. WHILE THE MISUNDERSTANDING IS REGRETTABLE, IT MAY NOT SERVE AS A BASIS FOR ALLOWING YOUR CLAIM.

THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AND TRAVEL EXPENSES WAS PROPER, AND, UPON REVIEW THE SETTLEMENT IS SUSTAINED.