B-162500, OCT. 19, 1967

B-162500: Oct 19, 1967

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

EMPLOYEES - TRANSFERS - PUBLIC LAW 89-516 - EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT DECISION TO CERTIFYING OFFICER OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONCERNING PROPRIETY OF PAYING A COMMUTED ALLOWANCE FOR MISCELLANEOUS MOVING EXPENSES TO EMPLOYEE WHO WAS RETRANSFERRED. DID NOT MOVE HIS FAMILY TO THE NEW STATION AND WHO WAS TRANSFERRED BACK TO PIERRE MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS HAVING DISCONTINUED OR RELOCATED HIS PERMANENT RESIDENCE AS CONTEMPLATED BY PUB. STANAGE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM PIERRE. STANAGE WAS TRANSFERRED BACK TO PIERRE. IN VIEW OF SUCH FACTS YOU QUESTION WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF THE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 24 OF PUB.L. 89-516. IS SET FORTH IN SECTION 3.1 OF CIRCULAR NO.

B-162500, OCT. 19, 1967

EMPLOYEES - TRANSFERS - PUBLIC LAW 89-516 - EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT DECISION TO CERTIFYING OFFICER OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONCERNING PROPRIETY OF PAYING A COMMUTED ALLOWANCE FOR MISCELLANEOUS MOVING EXPENSES TO EMPLOYEE WHO WAS RETRANSFERRED. EMPLOYEE WHO INCIDENT TO TRANSFER FROM PIERRE, S.D. TO MANDAN, N.D. DID NOT MOVE HIS FAMILY TO THE NEW STATION AND WHO WAS TRANSFERRED BACK TO PIERRE MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS HAVING DISCONTINUED OR RELOCATED HIS PERMANENT RESIDENCE AS CONTEMPLATED BY PUB. LAW 89-516 TO BE ENTITLED TO A MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE ALLOWANCE.

TO MR. W. M. WILSON:

YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 1, 1967, WITH ENCLOSURES, REFERENCE MROCF-E, REQUESTS OUR ADVANCE DECISION AS TO THE PAYMENT OF THE VOUCHER TRANSMITTED THEREWITH IN FAVOR OF MR. JAMES R. STANAGE, WHICH INVOLVES A CLAIM FOR $200 REPRESENTING A COMMUTED ALLOWANCE FOR MISCELLANEOUS MOVING EXPENSES AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 24 OF PUB.L. 89-516, APPROVED JULY 21, 1966, 80 STAT. 324.

PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF PUB.L. 89-516, ABOVE, MR. STANAGE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA TO MANDAN, NORTH DAKOTA--- A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 215 MILES. HOWEVER, THE EMPLOYEE DID NOT MOVE HIS FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD GOODS TO HIS NEW DUTY STATION. ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1966, MR. STANAGE WAS TRANSFERRED BACK TO PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA.

YOU REPORT THAT MR. STANAGE HAS MADE NO CLAIM FOR TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDANTS OR HOUSEHOLD GOODS INCIDENT TO HIS TRANSFER OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1966, SINCE HE MAINTAINED HIS RESIDENCE QUARTERS IN PIERRE WHILE STATIONED IN MANDAN. IN VIEW OF SUCH FACTS YOU QUESTION WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF THE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 24 OF PUB.L. 89-516, AS IMPLEMENTED BY SECTION 3 OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED OCTOBER 12, 1966.

THE PURPOSE OF THE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ALLOWANCE AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 24 OF PUB.L. 89-516, IS SET FORTH IN SECTION 3.1 OF CIRCULAR NO. A-56 AS FOLLOWS:

"A. THE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ALLOWANCE IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING VARIOUS CONTINGENT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH DISCONTINUING RESIDENCE AT ONE LOCATION AND ESTABLISHING RESIDENCE AT A NEW LOCATION IN CONNECTION WITH AN AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION.

"B. THE ALLOWANCE IS RELATED TO EXPENSES THAT ARE COMMON TO LIVING QUARTERS FURNISHINGS AND HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES AND OTHER GENERAL TYPES OF COSTS INHERENT IN RELOCATION OF A PLACE OF RESIDENCE. THE TYPES OF COSTS INTENDED TO BE REIMBURSED UNDER THE ALLOWANCE INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING:

"/1) DISCONNECTING AND CONNECTING APPLIANCES, EQUIPMENT AND UTILITIES INVOLVED IN RELOCATION, AND COST OF CONVERTING APPLIANCES FOR OPERATION ON AVAILABLE UTILITIES.

"/2) CUTTING AND FITTING RUGS, DRAPERIES AND CURTAINS MOVED FROM ONE RESIDENCE QUARTERS TO ANOTHER.

"/3) UTILITY FEES OR DEPOSITS THAT ARE NOT OFFSET BY EVENTUAL REFUNDS.

"/4) FORFEITURE LOSSES ON MEDICAL, DENTAL AND FOOD LOCKER CONTRACTS THAT ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE.

"/5) AUTOMOBILE REGISTRATION, DRIVER'S LICENSE AND USE TAXES IMPOSED WHEN BRINGING AUTOMOBILES INTO SOME JURISDICTIONS.'

IT IS CLEAR FROM THE LANGUAGE QUOTED ABOVE THAT THE STATUTORY REGULATIONS CONTEMPLATE A DISCONTINUANCE AND RELOCATION OF AN EMPLOYEE'S PERMANENT RESIDENCE QUARTERS. ALSO, THERE ARE NO FACTS OF RECORD IN THIS CASE TO INDICATE THAT THE EMPLOYEE INCURRED ANY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH RELOCATING PERMANENT RESIDENCE QUARTERS.

THEREFORE, THE CLAIM FOR MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ALLOWANCE MAY NOT BE ALLOWED. HOWEVER, SINCE THE VOUCHER INCLUDES A CLAIM FOR $17.92, REPRESENTING MILEAGE AND PER DIEM, IT IS RETURNED HEREWITH FOR PAYMENT OF SUCH AMOUNT, IF OTHERWISE CORRECT.