B-149495, AUG. 23, 1962

B-149495: Aug 23, 1962

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

THE RECORD SHOWS YOU WERE AUTHORIZED TRAVEL FOR YOURSELF AND WIFE FROM SAN FRANCISCO. SINCE YOUR TRAVEL BY PRIVATELY-OWNED VEHICLE WAS NOT APPROVED AS BEING MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT. THE REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUCH TRAVEL WAS LIMITED BY YOUR TRAVEL ORDERS TO NOT TO EXCEED THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION BY COMMON CARRIER BETWEEN SAN FRANCISCO AND PHILADELPHIA. YOU WERE REIMBURSED FOR THE CONSTRUCTIVE COST OF THIS TRAVEL BY RAIL FOR YOURSELF AND WIFE. ALTHOUGH YOU SAY THAT ADDITIONAL MILEAGE AND TRAVEL TIME WAS NECESSITATED BECAUSE OF UNAVOIDABLE DELAYS EN ROUTE. THERE IS NO AUTHORITY UNLESS YOUR TRAVEL ORDERS OR THE REGULATIONS SO PROVIDE WHEREBY YOU MAY BE REIMBURSED ANY AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF THE COST WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE GOVERNMENT HAD YOU TRAVELED BY COMMON CARRIER.

B-149495, AUG. 23, 1962

TO MR. WILMER J. BREINER:

YOUR LETTER OF JULY 3, 1962, REQUESTS REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT OF MAY 4, 1962, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR MILEAGE AND PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE INCIDENT TO YOUR TRAVEL DURING THE PERIOD APRIL 16, 1961, TO MAY 18, 1961, AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.

THE RECORD SHOWS YOU WERE AUTHORIZED TRAVEL FOR YOURSELF AND WIFE FROM SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, TO PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, BY PRIVATELY- OWNED AUTOMOBILE. SINCE YOUR TRAVEL BY PRIVATELY-OWNED VEHICLE WAS NOT APPROVED AS BEING MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT, THE REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUCH TRAVEL WAS LIMITED BY YOUR TRAVEL ORDERS TO NOT TO EXCEED THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION BY COMMON CARRIER BETWEEN SAN FRANCISCO AND PHILADELPHIA. SEE SECTION 3.5A OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS.

YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES BY PRIVATELY-OWNED AUTOMOBILE EXCEEDS THE CONSTRUCTIVE COST OF TRAVEL FOR THE TRIP BY COMMON CARRIER. YOU WERE REIMBURSED FOR THE CONSTRUCTIVE COST OF THIS TRAVEL BY RAIL FOR YOURSELF AND WIFE. ALTHOUGH YOU SAY THAT ADDITIONAL MILEAGE AND TRAVEL TIME WAS NECESSITATED BECAUSE OF UNAVOIDABLE DELAYS EN ROUTE, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY UNLESS YOUR TRAVEL ORDERS OR THE REGULATIONS SO PROVIDE WHEREBY YOU MAY BE REIMBURSED ANY AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF THE COST WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE GOVERNMENT HAD YOU TRAVELED BY COMMON CARRIER. SINCE YOU HAVE BEEN PAID THE CONSTRUCTIVE COST OF TRAVEL FOR YOURSELF AND WIFE BY RAIL BETWEEN THESE LOCATIONS YOU WERE REIMBURSED FOR ALL THE EXPENSES OF TRAVEL TO WHICH YOU ARE ENTITLED.

IT FOLLOWS, THEREFORE, THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM WAS PROPER, AND UPON REVIEW, THE SETTLEMENT IS SUSTAINED.