B-162371, SEP. 12, 1967

B-162371: Sep 12, 1967

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

IN ABSENCE OF AUTHORIZATION BY HEAD OF AGENCY FOR TRANSPORTATION OF EMPLOYEE'S PRIVATELY-OWNED AUTO THERE IS NO BASIS FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO EMPLOYEE FOR COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION OF AUTO ON CHANGE OF STATION. YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT WAS DENIED BY THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS CONCERNED. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE FOR THE SAME REASON. - "/2) THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY CONCERNED DETERMINES THAT IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE EMPLOYEE TO HAVE THE USE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE AT THE POST OF DUTY.'. THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF YOUR TRANSFER WERE CONTAINED IN BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. SECTION 8.2B OF THE REGULATIONS PROVIDED THAT ONE PRIVATELY OWNED MOTOR VEHICLE MAY BE TRANSPORTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE WHEN THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY DETERMINES IN ADVANCE OF AUTHORIZATION THAT IT IS "IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT" FOR THE EMPLOYEE TO HAVE THE USE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE AT THE PERMANENT POST OF DUTY.

B-162371, SEP. 12, 1967

TRANSPORTATION - AUTOMOBILES DECISION TO OVERSEAS EMPLOYEE FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION OF PRIVATELY-OWNED AUTO INCIDENT TO TRANSFER FROM SPAIN TO ITALY. IN ABSENCE OF AUTHORIZATION BY HEAD OF AGENCY FOR TRANSPORTATION OF EMPLOYEE'S PRIVATELY-OWNED AUTO THERE IS NO BASIS FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO EMPLOYEE FOR COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION OF AUTO ON CHANGE OF STATION.

TO MR. PETER J. MIGLIACCIO:

YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 5, 1967, REQUESTS REVIEW OF GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF JUNE 30, 1967, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY YOU FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE INCIDENT TO THE TRANSFER OF YOUR OFFICIAL STATION FROM ZARAGOZA, SPAIN, TO NAPLES, ITALY, UNDER ORDERS DATED APRIL 19, 1965, AS AMENDED.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT INCIDENT TO YOUR AUTHORIZED TRANSFER OF STATION YOU HAD YOUR AUTOMOBILE TRANSPORTED FROM ZARAGOZA TO NAPLES AT AN EXPENSE TO YOU OF $227.50. YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT WAS DENIED BY THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS CONCERNED, VIZ., THE DEPARTMENTS OF THE ARMY AND THE NAVY BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF AUTHORITY IN YOUR TRAVEL ORDER TO TRANSPORT AN AUTOMOBILE AT GOVERN EXPENSE. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE FOR THE SAME REASON.

YOUR SPECIAL ORDERS OF APRIL 19, 1965, AS AMENDED, DID NOT CONTAIN AUTHORITY TO TRANSPORT A PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLE AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE, SUCH AUTHORITY AT THE TIME OF YOUR TRANSFER OF OFFICIAL STATION BEING GOVERNED BY SECTION 321 OF THE OVERSEAS DIFFERENTIALS AND ALLOWANCES ACT, 74 STAT. 792, NOW 5 U.S.C. 5727. SECTION 5727 READS IN PART AS FOLLOWS:

"UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE PRESIDENT MAY PRESCRIBE, THE PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLE OF AN EMPLOYEE * * * MAY BE TRANSPORTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE * * * BETWEEN POSTS OF DUTY OUTSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, WHEN---

"/2) THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY CONCERNED DETERMINES THAT IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE EMPLOYEE TO HAVE THE USE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE AT THE POST OF DUTY.'

THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF YOUR TRANSFER WERE CONTAINED IN BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED APRIL 30, 1962. SO FAR AS HERE MATERIAL, SECTION 8.2B OF THE REGULATIONS PROVIDED THAT ONE PRIVATELY OWNED MOTOR VEHICLE MAY BE TRANSPORTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE WHEN THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY DETERMINES IN ADVANCE OF AUTHORIZATION THAT IT IS "IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT" FOR THE EMPLOYEE TO HAVE THE USE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE AT THE PERMANENT POST OF DUTY.

THE FILE IN YOUR CASE FAILS TO REVEAL THAT ANY AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL MADE A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR AUTOMOBILE. MOREOVER, YOUR ORDERS, AS AMENDED, CONTAIN NO AUTHORIZATION FOR THE SHIPMENT OF YOUR AUTOMOBILE. THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE MAY NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED DETERMINATION OR ISSUE THE NECESSARY AUTHORIZATION INSTEAD OF THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY CONCERNED OR HIS DELEGATEE WHO IS CHARGED WITH THAT RESPONSIBILITY BY LAW.

THEREFORE, WE MUST RULE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE REQUIRED ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF JUNE 30, 1967, DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM, IS CORRECT AND IT IS HEREBY SUSTAINED.

IN YOUR LETTER YOU SAY THAT "HELEN HANSEN, WHOSE NAME ALSO APPEARS ON ORDERS WITH MINE" RECEIVED REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF HER AUTOMOBILE. WE NOTE THAT HER NAME ONLY APPEARS ON THE SPECIAL ORDER AB- 107 DATED MAY 21, 1965, AMENDING HER ORDER AB-54 AND YOUR ORDER AB-49 OF APRIL 19, 1965. THOSE AMENDMENTS MAKE NO REFERENCE TO TRANSPORTATION OF AUTOMOBILES. APPARENTLY SHE WAS ISSUED SEPARATE ORDERS ON APRIL 19, 1965, THE PROVISIONS OF WHICH ARE UNKNOWN TO US. NOR DO WE HAVE ANY INFORMATION AS TO WHAT OTHER AMENDMENTS, IF ANY, MAY HAVE BEEN MADE TO HER ORIGINAL ORDERS.