B-157116, JUL. 16, 1965

B-157116, JUL. 16, 1965

TO MR. JESSE B. RALSTON:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 6, 1965, TO THE U.S. NAVY FINANCE CENTER, WHICH WAS FORWARDED HERE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION, CONCERNING YOUR INDEBTEDNESS TO THE UNITED STATES FOR EXCESS TRANSPORTATION COSTS AND ALSO MAKING A CLAIM FOR THE AMOUNT OTHERWISE DUE FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES WHICH WAS APPLIED IN PARTIAL LIQUIDATION OF SUCH INDEBTEDNESS.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT BY TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION DATED NOVEMBER 25, 1964, YOU WERE AUTHORIZED TO TRAVEL FROM SUBIC BAY, PHILIPPINES, TO GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA. PRIOR TO YOUR DEPARTURE THE TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION WAS AMENDED DECEMBER 9, 1964, TO AUTHORIZE TRAVEL FROM SUBIC BAY, PHILIPPINES, TO TUCSON, ARIZONA. YOU WERE BEING RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES FOR SEPARATION DUE TO A REDUCTION IN FORCE.

SECTION 7 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 2, 1946, PUB.L. 600, 60 STAT. 808, AS AMENDED, AUTHORIZES DEPARTMENTS TO PAY THE TRAVEL EXPENSES OF EMPLOYEES AND TRANSPORTATION OF IMMEDIATE FAMILIES AND HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS UPON THEIR RETURN TO THE PLACES OF THEIR ACTUAL RESIDENCE AT TIME OF ASSIGNMENT OF DUTY OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE ALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION TO A PLACE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OTHER THAN SUCH PLACE OF ACTUAL RESIDENCE, PROVIDED THE GOVERNMENT'S COST IS NO GREATER. 26 COMP. GEN. 322.

YOU CONTEND THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL BY AN INDIRECT ROUTE TO TUCSON PROVIDED THE COST OF SUCH TRAVEL DOES NOT EXCEED WHAT IT WOULD HAVE COST THE GOVERNMENT IF YOU HAD TRAVELED TO GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA. AS TUCSON HAD BEEN SELECTED AS AN ALTERNATE PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES FOR RETURNING FROM OVERSEAS AND THE COST OF TRAVEL THERETO IS LESS THAN THE COST OF TRAVEL TO GREENVILLE YOU WERE ONLY ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES BY THE INDIRECT ROUTE NOT TO EXCEED THE COST OF TRAVEL BY THE DIRECT (USUALLY TRAVELED) ROUTE TO TUCSON. WHEN AN EMPLOYEE TRAVELS BY AN INDIRECT ROUTE OR DEPARTS FROM THE USUALLY TRAVELED ROUTE FOR HIS PERSONAL CONVENIENCE HE MUST BEAR THE EXTRA EXPENSE. COMP. GEN. 315. ALSO, SEE 37 COMP. GEN. 113 AND 41 ID. 553, CONCERNING TRAVEL ON "HOME LEAVE" TO ALTERNATE LOCATIONS (IN LIEU OF ACTUAL RESIDENCE) WHERE PAYMENT WAS LIMITED TO THE EXPENSES TO THE ALTERNATE LOCATION BY THE MOST DIRECT (USUALLY TRAVELED) ROUTE.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SPENT $390.30 FOR TRANSPORTATION COSTS OF THE INDIRECT TRAVEL PERFORMED BY YOU AND YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, VIA PORTLAND, OREGON, TO TUCSON, WHEREAS, IF THE TRAVEL HAD BEEN PERFORMED BY A DIRECT ROUTE THE COST WOULD HAVE BEEN $152.40. THEREFORE, YOU ARE LIABLE FOR THE DIFFERENCE OF $237.90, LESS THE AMOUNT OTHERWISE DUE YOU FOR PER DIEM AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ($38) OR $199.90. THEREFORE, THE ACTION TAKEN IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 15, 1965, CERTIFYING YOU TO BE INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $199.90 WAS CORRECT AND MUST BE SUSTAINED.