B-157616, FEB. 21, 1968

B-157616: Feb 21, 1968

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

WHERE PER DIEM FOR EMPLOYEE UNDER EXTENSIVE PERIOD OF TRAINING WOULD EXCEED AMOUNT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY AND EFFECTS ON CHANGE OF STATION ACTION OF DEPARTMENT IN AUTHORIZING TRANSPORTATION RATHER THAN PER DIEM WAS PROPER UNDER 5 U.S.C. 4109. I HAVE A CLAIM FOR ABOUT $3. ALSO YOU SAY "INTERNAL REVENUE INSISTS THAT CIVIL SERVICE MUST PAY ME THE PER DIEM SINCE I WAS. OTHER PARTS OF YOUR LETTER TOGETHER WITH PAPERS IN OUR FILES REVEAL THAT THE TRAINING TO WHICH YOU REFER WAS DURING THE PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 1962 TO AUGUST 1963 AT FORT BELVOIR. THAT ORDER SPECIFIED A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION AS BEING INVOLVED AND WAS AMENDED ON NOVEMBER 6. THAT CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION ON JULY 22.

B-157616, FEB. 21, 1968

PER DIEM - TRAINING DECISION TO ARMY EMPLOYEE DISALLOWING CLAIM FOR PER DIEM FOR 48 WEEK PERIOD OF TRAINING. WHERE PER DIEM FOR EMPLOYEE UNDER EXTENSIVE PERIOD OF TRAINING WOULD EXCEED AMOUNT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY AND EFFECTS ON CHANGE OF STATION ACTION OF DEPARTMENT IN AUTHORIZING TRANSPORTATION RATHER THAN PER DIEM WAS PROPER UNDER 5 U.S.C. 4109.

TO MR. RICHARD W. HECHT:

IN YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 18, 1967, YOU SAY THAT "DUE TO A LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION, I HAVE A CLAIM FOR ABOUT $3,000 DUE ME FOR PER DIEM NOT PAID.' ALSO YOU SAY "INTERNAL REVENUE INSISTS THAT CIVIL SERVICE MUST PAY ME THE PER DIEM SINCE I WAS, THEY CLAIM, OBVIOUSLY TDY FOR TRAINING.'

OTHER PARTS OF YOUR LETTER TOGETHER WITH PAPERS IN OUR FILES REVEAL THAT THE TRAINING TO WHICH YOU REFER WAS DURING THE PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 1962 TO AUGUST 1963 AT FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA, AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY. IT APPEARS THAT PURSUANT TO LETTER ORDER NO. 9-24 DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 1962, YOU PROCEEDED FROM FORT GREELY, ALASKA, TO FORT BELVOIR, BY PRIVATELY-OWNED AUTOMOBILE, TO ATTEND A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATOR COURSE (APPROXIMATELY 48 WEEKS) BEGINNING OCTOBER 8, 1962. THAT ORDER SPECIFIED A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION AS BEING INVOLVED AND WAS AMENDED ON NOVEMBER 6, 1962, TO AUTHORIZE SHIPMENT OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS AS BEING ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT. ON JUNE 17, 1965, YOU SUBMITTED A TRAVEL VOUCHER IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,880 AS BEING THE PER DIEM DUE YOU FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AFTER YOU ARRIVED AT FORT BELVOIR ON SEPTEMBER 24, 1962. THAT CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION ON JULY 22, 1965, FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE SETTLEMENT. A COPY THEREOF IS ENCLOSED.

IN RESPONSE TO REQUESTS DATED MAY 5 AND AUGUST 26, 1965, FROM YOUR FATHER WHICH A SENATOR FORWARDED TO US, WE ADVISED THE SENATOR ABOUT THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM. WE PRESUME THAT THE SENATOR INFORMED YOUR FATHER OF OUR REASONS FOR SUSTAINING THE SETTLEMENT, SUBSTANTIALLY AS GIVEN HEREINAFTER.

PAYMENT OF YOUR SALARY WHILE ATTENDING THE TRAINING COURSE AND EXPENSES OF YOUR TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS WERE GOVERNED BY SECTION 10 OF THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TRAINING ACT, 5 U.S.C. 2309 (1964 ED.) NOW 5 U.S.C. 4109, AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS CPR T3 MENTIONED IN THE SETTLEMENT OF JULY 22, 1965. UNDER THAT ACT, IF THE ESTIMATED AGGREGATE PER DIEM FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF TRAINING IS GREATER THAN THE ESTIMATED COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS, THE DEPARTMENT MAY AUTHORIZE SUCH TRANSPORTATION -- AS WAS DONE IN YOUR CASE -- RATHER THAN AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF PER DIEM DURING AN EXTENSIVE PERIOD OF TRAINING. POINT OUT THAT EVEN 180 DAYS' PER DIEM ($16 PER DAY CLAIMED BY YOU) WOULD HAVE EXCEEDED THE AMOUNT THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EXPENDED INCIDENT TO THE TRANSFER OF YOUR OFFICIAL STATION TO FORT BELVOIR AND THENCE BACK TO ALASKA.

SINCE THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW IN DETERMINING NOT TO ALLOW YOU PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE WHILE UNDERGOING THE TRAINING AT FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA, THERE IS NO BASIS WHEREBY WE CAN AUTHORIZE ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM. MOREOVER, WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE IN A MATTER OF THIS NATURE.