B-154389, JUL. 10, 1964

B-154389: Jul 10, 1964

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN YOUR LETTER PERTINENT TO THE RESOLUTION OF THIS MATTER IS (1) MR. BOWLING WAS ISSUED A TRAVEL ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 11. AUTHORIZING HIM TO MOVE HIS FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS AND HE WAS INSTRUCTED TO REPORT AT OMAHA. WHERE THEY REMAINED WHEN HE WAS ASSIGNED TO SAGINAW. FROM WHICH POINT HE WAS REASSIGNED TO OMAHA. BECAUSE HIS SON WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL AND HE HAD TO ARRANGE TO SELL HIS HOUSE. WHICH TRADE WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED AT NO COST TO THE GOVERNMENT. GEN. 748 WE HELD AS FOLLOWS: "AN EMPLOYEE WHO WAS ORDERED FROM ONE OFFICIAL STATION TO ANOTHER AND WHO. WAS TRANSFERRED TO A THIRD STATION AT HIS OWN REQUEST AND FOR HIS OWN CONVENIENCE IS NOT ENTITLED UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9805 TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS FROM HIS FIRST OFFICIAL STATION TO THE THIRD STATION.

B-154389, JUL. 10, 1964

TO THE HONORABLE N. E. HALABY, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY:

YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 4, 1964, REQUESTS OUR CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE OF MR. OTIS A. BOWLING, AN EMPLOYEE OF YOUR AGENCY WHO HAS BEEN DENIED REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE EXPENSES OF MOVING HIS FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN 27 COMP. GEN. 748.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN YOUR LETTER PERTINENT TO THE RESOLUTION OF THIS MATTER IS (1) MR. BOWLING WAS ISSUED A TRAVEL ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 11, 1963, AUTHORIZING HIM TO MOVE HIS FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS AND HE WAS INSTRUCTED TO REPORT AT OMAHA, NEBRASKA; (2) HE REPORTED THEREAT BUT DID NOT MOVE HIS FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS FROM GALESBURG, ILLINOIS, WHERE THEY REMAINED WHEN HE WAS ASSIGNED TO SAGINAW, MICHIGAN, FROM WHICH POINT HE WAS REASSIGNED TO OMAHA, NEBRASKA, BECAUSE HIS SON WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL AND HE HAD TO ARRANGE TO SELL HIS HOUSE; (3) AFTER REPORTING TO OMAHA, MR. BOWLING IN SEPTEMBER 1963 ARRANGED A MUTUAL TRADE--- PRESUMABLY THIS MEANS A TRADE OF JOBS AND HOUSES--- WITH AN EMPLOYEE AT OTTUMWA, IOWA, WHICH TRADE WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED AT NO COST TO THE GOVERNMENT; AND (4) IN JANUARY 1964 HE MOVED HIS FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS FROM GALESBURG TO OTTUMWA AND REQUESTED REIMBURSEMENT THEREFOR.

IN 27 COMP. GEN. 748 WE HELD AS FOLLOWS:

"AN EMPLOYEE WHO WAS ORDERED FROM ONE OFFICIAL STATION TO ANOTHER AND WHO, BEFORE CONSUMMATION OF SHIPMENT OF HIS HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS TO SUCH NEW STATION AS AUTHORIZED BY HIS TRANSFER ORDER, WAS TRANSFERRED TO A THIRD STATION AT HIS OWN REQUEST AND FOR HIS OWN CONVENIENCE IS NOT ENTITLED UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9805 TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS FROM HIS FIRST OFFICIAL STATION TO THE THIRD STATION, THE EMPLOYEE, UPON RETRANSFER FOR HIS OWN CONVENIENCE, HAVING RELINQUISHED ALL RIGHT TO TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES ACQUIRED UNDER THE SAID EXECUTIVE ORDER AS A RESULT OF THE FIRST TRANSFER ORDER.'

YOU INDICATE THAT SINCE THE EMPLOYEE WAS UNABLE TO COMPLETE THE MOVE TO OMAHA, NEBRASKA, DUE TO HIS INABILITY TO SELL HIS HOUSE AND OTHERWISE ACTED IN GOOD FAITH WHEN HE TRANSFERRED TO OTTUMWA, IOWA, AT HIS OWN EXPENSE THAT SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD FORM A BASIS FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE EXPRESSED IN 27 COMP. GEN. 748. IN THAT CONNECTION YOU REFER TO OUR DECISION OF APRIL 8, 1960, B-142286, AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF SUCH EXPENSES UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE MOVEMENT OF THE FAMILY AND THE HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS TO THE NEW DUTY STATION HAD ACTUALLY BEEN ACCOMPLISHED BUT THE EMPLOYEE WAS PREVENTED FROM REPORTING FOR DUTY BECAUSE OF SERIOUS ILLNESS OF HIS WIFE IMMEDIATELY UPON THEIR ARRIVAL THEREAT; ALSO, THE EMPLOYEE WAS PERMITTED TO TRANSFER, AT HIS EXPENSE, BACK TO HIS OLD DUTY STATION.

SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HERE INVOLVED ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE CONSIDERED IN 27 COMP. GEN. 748, WHAT WE SAID THEREIN AS QUOTED ABOVE IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE HERE. IN VIEW THEREOF NO BASIS EXISTS FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO MR. BOWLING OF THE EXPENSES FOR THE MOVEMENT OF HIS FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS IN JANUARY 1964, EVEN THOUGH HE ACTED IN GOOD FAITH AND THE DELAY WAS CAUSED BY HIS INABILITY TO SELL HIS HOUSE.

OUR DECISION B-142286, APRIL 8, 1960, REFERRED TO BY YOU, IS NOT DEEMED APPLICABLE HERE AND DOES NOT REPRESENT A MODIFICATION OR EXCEPTION TO 27 COMP. GEN. 748. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ..END :