B-156433, JUN 11, 1965
Highlights
YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED ON THE BASIS THAT THERE WAS NO INDICATION. THAT ALL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS COULD NOT HAVE TRAVELED IN THE TWO AUTOMOBILES USED ON THE TRIPS FOR WHICH PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE. THERE WAS NO EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT WAS MEANT BY PERSONAL REASONS. YOU MAY BE ADVISED THAT SUCH TERM WAS USED IN THE SENSE OF WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD TO BE AN ELECTION BY YOUR OLDER DAUGHTER TO REMAIN IN OMAHA PRIMARILY BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO CONTINUE TO WORK AND ATTEND SCHOOL PART-TIME. WHILE WE HAVE PERMITTED SEPARATE TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. OR WHERE COMPLETION OF A SCHOOL TERM WAS INVOLVED. YOU NOW SAY YOUR DAUGHTER WAS COMMITTED TO WORK FOR HER EMPLOYER FOR SEVERAL MORE MONTHS AFTER YOUR TRANSFER.
B-156433, JUN 11, 1965
PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE
MR. SIGMUND P. SOCHA:
THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 19, 1965, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 23, 1965, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENT DAUGHTER FROM OMAHA, NEBRASKA, TO GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS, ON JANUARY 20, 1965, UNDER ORDERS DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 1964, AS A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.
YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED ON THE BASIS THAT THERE WAS NO INDICATION, OTHER THAN FOR PERSONAL REASONS, THAT ALL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS COULD NOT HAVE TRAVELED IN THE TWO AUTOMOBILES USED ON THE TRIPS FOR WHICH PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE.
YOU SAY THAT IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 23, 1965, TO YOU, THERE WAS NO EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT WAS MEANT BY PERSONAL REASONS. YOU MAY BE ADVISED THAT SUCH TERM WAS USED IN THE SENSE OF WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD TO BE AN ELECTION BY YOUR OLDER DAUGHTER TO REMAIN IN OMAHA PRIMARILY BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO CONTINUE TO WORK AND ATTEND SCHOOL PART-TIME. WHILE WE HAVE PERMITTED SEPARATE TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AS THE PREMATURE TRAVEL OF YOUR YOUNGER DAUGHTER TO ENTER SCHOOL, OR WHERE COMPLETION OF A SCHOOL TERM WAS INVOLVED, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE TRAVEL OF YOUR OLDER DAUGHTER WOULD FALL IN THAT CATEGORY. YOU NOW SAY YOUR DAUGHTER WAS COMMITTED TO WORK FOR HER EMPLOYER FOR SEVERAL MORE MONTHS AFTER YOUR TRANSFER. WHILE SHE MIGHT HAVE FELT MORALLY OBLIGATED TO FULFILL THAT COMMITMENT, NEVERTHELESS, THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT BE CHARGED WITH A GREATER EXPENSE BY REASON OF HER ELECTION TO STAY IN OMAHA FOR THAT PURPOSE.
THEREFORE, WE MUST SUSTAIN THE ACTION TAKEN IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 23, 1965.