B-147508, JAN. 4, 1962

B-147508: Jan 4, 1962

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

THE EXCEPTIONS WHICH TOTAL $229.75 WERE TAKEN PURSUANT TO SECTION 6.8 OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS WHICH PROHIBITS THE PAYING OF PER DIEM TO EMPLOYEES AT THEIR PERMANENT DUTY STATIONS. IT IS ADMINISTRATIVELY STATED THAT BECAUSE OF THE WORK LOAD AND UNAVAILABILITY OF A PARTICULAR SUPERVISOR AT SAN FRANCISCO. BEST WAS DIRECTED TO CONTINUE HIS TEMPORARY DUTY ASSIGNMENT AT PORTLAND. WHICH WAS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF HIS ARRIVAL AT PORTLAND (OCTOBER 29). BEST WAS PROMOTED AND TRANSFERRED TO A PERMANENT DUTY STATION AT PORTLAND. HIS WORK DURING THIS PERIOD WAS UNRELATED TO THE POSITION TO WHICH HE HAD BEEN PROMOTED AND IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT HE DID NOT ASSUME THE DUTIES OF THE NEW POSITION UNTIL NOVEMBER 15.

B-147508, JAN. 4, 1962

TO MRS. BERTIE A. DUDLEY, AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICER AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE:

YOUR UNDATED LETTER RECEIVED HERE OCTOBER 30, 1961, REQUESTS THAT WE RECONSIDER THE ACTION TAKEN BY OUR OFFICE IN STATING EXCEPTION TO AMOUNTS INCLUDED IN TRAVEL VOUCHERS SUBMITTED BY MR. F. ANDREW BEST, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE, COVERING THE PERIODS FROM NOVEMBER 1 TO NOVEMBER 10, 1960. THE EXCEPTIONS WHICH TOTAL $229.75 WERE TAKEN PURSUANT TO SECTION 6.8 OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS WHICH PROHIBITS THE PAYING OF PER DIEM TO EMPLOYEES AT THEIR PERMANENT DUTY STATIONS.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT MR. BEST DEPARTED HIS PERMANENT DUTY STATION AT SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, ON OCTOBER 10, 1960, FOR TEMPORARY DUTY AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. IT IS ADMINISTRATIVELY STATED THAT BECAUSE OF THE WORK LOAD AND UNAVAILABILITY OF A PARTICULAR SUPERVISOR AT SAN FRANCISCO, MR. BEST WAS DIRECTED TO CONTINUE HIS TEMPORARY DUTY ASSIGNMENT AT PORTLAND, OREGON, WHERE THE WORK COULD BE PERFORMED UNDER THE DESIRED SUPERVISION. ON OCTOBER 21, 1960, WHICH WAS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF HIS ARRIVAL AT PORTLAND (OCTOBER 29), MR. BEST WAS PROMOTED AND TRANSFERRED TO A PERMANENT DUTY STATION AT PORTLAND, THE TRANSFER ORDER STATING THAT TRAVEL THEREUNDER WOULD BEGIN ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 13, 1961.

YOU SAY THAT ALTHOUGH MR. BEST REMAINED IN PORTLAND FROM OCTOBER 29 UNTIL NOVEMBER 10, HIS WORK DURING THIS PERIOD WAS UNRELATED TO THE POSITION TO WHICH HE HAD BEEN PROMOTED AND IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT HE DID NOT ASSUME THE DUTIES OF THE NEW POSITION UNTIL NOVEMBER 15, 1960.

YOUR LETTER INDICATES THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF THE RULE EXPRESSED IN DECISIONS OF THIS OFFICE TO THE EFFECT THAT AN EMPLOYEE MAY NOT BE ALLOWED PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE AT A PLACE WHERE HE IS ON TEMPORARY DUTY AFTER HE RECEIVES NOTICE THAT SUCH PLACE IS TO BECOME HIS PERMANENT DUTY STATION AND THAT, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE TRANSFER OF AN EMPLOYEE TRANSFERRED FROM ONE OFFICIAL STATION TO ANOTHER IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY IS THE DATE THAT HE ACTUALLY ENTERS UPON DUTY AT THE NEW OFFICIAL STATION, OR, IF AN EMPLOYEE IS PERFORMING TEMPORARY DUTY THEREAT UNDER COMPETENT ORDERS, THE TRANSFER IS EFFECTIVE UPON THE DATE HE RECEIVED NOTICE THEREOF. SEE 30 COMP. GEN. 94; 29 COMP. GEN. 100; 28 ID. 285; 27 ID. 294; 26 ID. 293, AND CASES CITED THEREIN. HOWEVER, YOU FEEL THAT THE CONDITIONS PREVAILING IN MR. BEST'S CASE ARE SUFFICIENT TO REMOVE IT FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER HE HAD OFFICIAL NOTICE OF THE TRANSFER OF HIS OFFICIAL STATION TO PORTLAND PRIOR TO REPORTING TO THAT LOCATION FOR TEMPORARY DUTY.

ASSUMING THAT THE EMPLOYEE WAS FULLY ADVISED IN THE MATTER PRIOR TO THE DATE HE ARRIVED AT PORTLAND (SEE 30 COMP. GEN. 94), IT IS OUR VIEW THAT PORTLAND, OREGON, BECAME HIS OFFICIAL STATION ON THE DATE OF HIS ARRIVAL THEREAT FOR OFFICIAL DUTY, I.E., OCTOBER 29, 1960, THERE BEING NO INDICATION THAT MR. BEST RETURNED TO SALT LAKE CITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERFORMING ANY OFFICIAL DUTIES. WE DO NOT REGARD THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYEE WAS PERFORMING DUTIES OTHER THAN THOSE OF THE POSITION GIVING RISE TO THE TRANSFER TO PORTLAND AS HAVING ANY BEARING, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IN DETERMINING HIS PERMANENT DUTY STATION FOR TRAVEL PURPOSES.

WE, THEREFORE, FEEL THAT THE REASONS STATED IN YOUR LETTER AND ITS ENCLOSURES ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY REMOVAL OF THE EXCEPTIONS STATED. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT IF IT BE DETERMINED THAT MR. BEST WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED IN ANY EVENT TO MAKE A TRIP FROM PORTLAND, OREGON, TO SALT LAKE CITY TO PICK UP THE OFFICIAL EQUIPMENT MENTIONED IN YOUR LETTER (WHICH COULD NOT OTHERWISE REASONABLY BE DELIVERED TO HIM) HE MAY BE ALLOWED CREDIT TOWARDS THE EXCEPTIONS FOR THE EXPENSES WHICH WOULD THEREBY HAVE BEEN INCURRED.