B-160838, MAR. 10, 1967

B-160838: Mar 10, 1967

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

O-DONNELL'S CASE SHOWS THAT UPON DISCHARGE FROM THE NAVY HE WAS REQUESTED TO TRAVEL FROM HIS RESIDENCE IN SAN FRANCISCO TO WASHINGTON. O-DONNELL WAS INFORMED THAT THE EARLIEST TRANSPORTATION BY PLANE FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO SAIGON WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE UNTIL AUGUST 2. APPARENTLY THERE WAS NO DUTY FOR MR. O-DONNELL TO PERFORM IN WASHINGTON OR SAN FRANCISCO AFTER COMPLETION OF HIS ORIENTATION AND HE SAYS THAT HE WAS ADVISED BY HIS TRANSPORTATION ADVISOR TO RETURN TO HIS RESIDENCE IN SAN FRANCISCO TO AWAIT EMPLANEMENT FOR SAIGON. O-DONNELL INDICATES THAT HE WAS ENGAGED AT LEAST SOME OF THE TIME IN ARRANGING FOR THE STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND THE SHIPMENT OF HIS AUTOMOBILE.

B-160838, MAR. 10, 1967

TO MISS MARY E. VOLZ:

WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 1, 1967, REFERENCE ADFM:VOU. NO. 117/67, WITH ENCLOSED TRAVEL VOUCHER IN FAVOR OF MR. THOMAS L. O DONNELL COVERING HIS TRAVEL DURING JULY AND AUGUST 1966 FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., TO SAIGON, SOUTH VIETNAM, AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. HE OBJECTS TO A CHANGE OF ANNUAL LEAVE FOR DELAYS IN THE UNITED STATES EN ROUTE TO SAIGON. YOU ASK OUR ASSISTANCE IN THE MATTER PRESUMABLY IN THE CAPACITY OF AN AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICER.

THE RECORD IN MR. O-DONNELL'S CASE SHOWS THAT UPON DISCHARGE FROM THE NAVY HE WAS REQUESTED TO TRAVEL FROM HIS RESIDENCE IN SAN FRANCISCO TO WASHINGTON, D.C. TO REPORT FOR ORIENTATION WITH THE AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT BEGINNING JULY 5, 1966, AND ENDING JULY 22, 1966. DURING THE ORIENTATION COURSE MR. O-DONNELL WAS INFORMED THAT THE EARLIEST TRANSPORTATION BY PLANE FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO SAIGON WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE UNTIL AUGUST 2. APPARENTLY THERE WAS NO DUTY FOR MR. O-DONNELL TO PERFORM IN WASHINGTON OR SAN FRANCISCO AFTER COMPLETION OF HIS ORIENTATION AND HE SAYS THAT HE WAS ADVISED BY HIS TRANSPORTATION ADVISOR TO RETURN TO HIS RESIDENCE IN SAN FRANCISCO TO AWAIT EMPLANEMENT FOR SAIGON, DURING WHICH PERIOD HE WOULD BE CARRIED IN A TRAVEL STATUS AWAITING TRANSPORTATION.

MR. O-DONNELL DEPARTED WASHINGTON ON JULY 22 FOR SAN FRANCISCO VIA CHICAGO WHERE, FOR PERSONAL REASONS, HE REMAINED UNTIL THE AFTERNOON OF JULY 24 WHEN HE CONTINUED HIS JOURNEY TO SAN FRANCISCO ARRIVING THERE THE SAME DAY. DURING THE ENSUING NINE DAYS MR. O-DONNELL INDICATES THAT HE WAS ENGAGED AT LEAST SOME OF THE TIME IN ARRANGING FOR THE STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND THE SHIPMENT OF HIS AUTOMOBILE. DEPARTED AT 8 P.M. FOR SAIGON ON AUGUST 2.

EXCEPT FOR THE LAYOVER IN CHICAGO FROM FRIDAY AFTERNOON, JULY 22, UNTIL SUNDAY AFTERNOON, JULY 24, MR. O-DONNELL APPARENTLY CLAIMS THAT HE WAS IN A TRAVEL STATUS AWAITING TRANSPORTATION TO SAIGON. HOWEVER, HIS TRAVEL WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPUTED ON A CONSTRUCTIVE BASIS REFLECTING DEPARTURE FROM WASHINGTON ON JULY 22, DEPARTURE FROM SAN FRANCISCO JULY 23, AND ARRIVAL AT SAIGON JULY 25, 1966. HE WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY CARRIED IN AN ANNUAL LEAVE STATUS WITHOUT PER DIEM FOR TIME IN EXCESS OF THAT REFLECTED IN THE CONSTRUCTIVE COMPUTATION.

YOUR QUESTION CONCERNS THE PROPRIETY OF PLACING MR. O-DONNELL IN A LEAVE STATUS FOR THE TIME SPENT IN CHICAGO AND SAN FRANCISCO PRIOR TO HIS DEPARTURE FOR SAIGON DURING WHICH HE PERFORMED NO OFFICIAL DUTY.

IF IT IS ADMINISTRATIVELY DETERMINED THAT SOME PART OF THE TIME SPENT BY MR. O-DONNELL IN SAN FRANCISCO REASONABLY AND NECESSARILY WAS USED IN ARRANGING FOR THE STORAGE OR SHIPMENT OF HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND AUTOMOBILE INCIDENT TO HIS ASSIGNMENT TO DUTY IN SAIGON, WE WOULD INTERPOSE NO OBJECTION TO HIS BEING ADMINISTRATIVELY EXCUSED FOR SUCH TIME AS WAS ESSENTIAL FOR THOSE PURPOSES WITHOUT A CHARGE TO ANNUAL LEAVE OR LOSS OF PAY. SEE GENERALLY FPM SUPP. 990-2, BOOK 630, SUBCHAPTER E-11-5. FURTHER, IF YOUR AGENCY HAD NO DUTIES FOR THE EMPLOYEE IN SAN FRANCISCO OR WASHINGTON AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ORIENTATION COURSE AND THE PRIMARY REASON FOR ANY ADDITIONAL DELAY WAS THE UNAVAILABILITY OF TRANSPORTATION, OUR OFFICE WOULD INTERPOSE NO OBJECTION TO CANCELLATION OF THE ANNUAL LEAVE CHARGE FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF THE DELAY EN ROUTE.

WE ASSUME THAT MR. O-DONNELL HAD ANNUAL LEAVE TO HIS CREDIT FROM SOME PRIOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT AT THE TIME OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO AID. OTHERWISE THERE WOULD APPEAR TO BE FOR APPLICATION OUR DECISION 31 COMP. GEN. 581, ANSWER TO QUESTION 2. CF. ANSWER TO QUESTION 7.

ACTION IN THE CASE SHOULD BE TAKEN ACCORDINGLY. THE TRAVEL VOUCHER IS RETURNED HEREWITH.