B-155465, NOV. 18, 1964

B-155465, NOV. 18, 1964

TO MR. CLARENCE L. BOSSERMAN, JR.:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 16, 1964, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING REVIEW OF OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT DATED AUGUST 18, 1964, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENT SON FROM YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, TO SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, DURING THE PERIOD JULY 28 TO AUGUST 2, 1963.

BY DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY TRAVEL ORDER NO. 8670.1052, DATED JULY 17, 1963, YOU WERE AUTHORIZED TO TRAVEL FROM MECHANICSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA, TO NORTON AIR FORCE BASE, SAN BERNARDINO, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERFORMING TEMPORARY DUTY AS AN OSO REPRESENTATIVE FOR PROJECT SHAKEDOWN. ALTHOUGH YOUR SON WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO TRAVEL WITH YOU AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE UNDER THE TEMPORARY DUTY TRAVEL ORDER, HE DID ACCOMPANY YOU IN YOUR OWN AUTOMOBILE TO SAN BERNARDINO AND RESIDED WITH YOU THERE FOR A PERIOD OF APPROXIMATELY ONE MONTH.

BY LETTER DATED JANUARY 21, 1964, YOU RECEIVED OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION THAT YOUR PERMANENT DUTY STATION WAS TO BE TRANSFERRED TO SAN BERNARDINO, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 2, 1964. PURSUANT TO YOUR TRANSFER, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY TRAVEL ORDER NO. 8670.1605, DATED FEBRUARY 28, 1964, WAS ISSUED AUTHORIZING THE TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS AND TRAVEL OF YOUR SON FROM MECHANICSBURG TO SAN BERNARDINO.

YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUR SON'S TRAVEL, WHICH WAS PERFORMED SEVEN MONTHS IN ADVANCE OF YOUR CHANGE OF STATION, WAS DISALLOWED BY THE CLAIMS DIVISION OF OUR OFFICE PRIMARILY ON THE GROUND THAT THE EVIDENCE OF RECORD DID NOT SATISFACTORILY ESTABLISH THAT SUCH TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED IN ANTICIPATION OF A CHANGE OF STATION.

REIMBURSEMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES OF AN EMPLOYEE'S IMMEDIATE FAMILY FOR ANTICIPATORY TRAVEL PERFORMED BY THEM HASBEEN AUTHORIZED IN THOSE INSTANCES WHEN IT WAS SHOWN THAT THE TRAVEL ORDER SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED TO THE EMPLOYEE INCLUDED AUTHORIZATION FOR THEIR TRANSPORTATION ON THE BASIS OF A PREVIOUSLY EXISTING ADMINISTRATIVE INTENTION, CLEARLY EVIDENT AT THE TIME THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY THE EMPLOYEE, TO TRANSFER THE EMPLOYEE'S HEADQUARTERS. SEE 29 COMP. GEN. 293; ID. 232; 27 ID.

A THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF THE FILE IN YOUR CASE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT AT THE TIME OF YOUR SON'S TRAVEL WITH YOU IN JULY 1963, THERE EXISTED AN ADMINISTRATIVE INTENTION TO TRANSFER YOUR HEADQUARTERS TO SAN BERNARDINO. THE ENCLOSURES SUBMITTED WITH YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 16, 1964 --- PARTICULARLY THE LETTER OF NOVEMBER 21, 1963, ADDRESSED TO THE CHIEF OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS--- FAIL TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIM. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LETTER OF NOVEMBER 21, 1963, INDICATES THAT IT WAS NOT UNTIL OCTOBER 21, 1963, THAT CERTAIN EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO PROJECT SHAKEDOWN WERE OFFERED THE CHOICE TO REMAIN AT THEIR CURRENT TEMPORARY DUTY STATIONS ON A PERMANENT BASIS.

IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE CLEARLY INDICATING THAT AT THE TIME OF THE TRAVEL TO CALIFORNIA YOU HAD BEEN INFORMED OF A PROPOSED CHANGE OF HEADQUARTERS, YOUR SON'S TRAVEL MUST BE HELD TO BE A PERSONAL EXPENSE FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT IS NOT AUTHORIZED.