B-162821, MAY 1, 1968

B-162821: May 1, 1968

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

ARE STATED THEREIN AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. A-56 WERE PROMULGATED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUDGET UNDER AN APPROPRIATE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FROM THE PRESIDENT AND ARE THE REGULATIONS REFERRED TO IN 5 U.S.C. 5724 (A) DESIGNED TO IMPLEMENT THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THAT SECTION. AMONG THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 4 OF THE CIRCULAR FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY AN EMPLOYEE IN THE SETTLEMENT OF AN UNEXPIRED LEASE AT HIS OLD OFFICIAL STATION IS THAT THE DWELLING AT THE OLD STATION WAS THE EMPLOYEE'S ACTUAL RESIDENCE AT THE TIME HE WAS INFORMED OF HIS TRANSFER. ESTABLISHES THAT YOU WERE NOT RESIDING IN THE LEASED OR RENTED PREMISES AT FORT WAYNE THROUGH WHICH YOU INCURRED A LOSS AT THE TIME OF YOUR TRANSFER TO MILWAUKEE.

B-162821, MAY 1, 1968

TO MR. R. L. SCHROEDER:

YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 20, 1968, REQUESTS REVIEW OF GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF MARCH 4, 1968, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN RELOCATION EXPENSES INCURRED BY YOU INCIDENT TO THE CHANGE OF YOUR OFFICIAL STATION FROM FORT WAYNE, INDIANA, TO MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN, IN SEPTEMBER 1966, AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY.

THE REASONS FOR THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF MARCH 4, 1968, ARE STATED THEREIN AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. HOWEVER, YOUR LETTER SUGGESTS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF PUBLIC LAW 89-516, APPROVED JULY 21, 1966, NOW CODIFIED IN 5 U.S.C. 5724 (A), AND THE REGULATIONS IN BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED OCTOBER 12, 1966, IMPLEMENTING 5 U.S.C. 5724 (A), SHOULD BE SO CONSTRUED ASTO PROTECT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FROM INCURRING UNNECESSARY OBLIGATIONS BECAUSE OF TRANSFER AND TO REIMBURSE EMPLOYEES FOR LOSSES SUSTAINED IN TERMINATING LEASES.

THE REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN CIRCULAR NO. A-56 WERE PROMULGATED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUDGET UNDER AN APPROPRIATE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FROM THE PRESIDENT AND ARE THE REGULATIONS REFERRED TO IN 5 U.S.C. 5724 (A) DESIGNED TO IMPLEMENT THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THAT SECTION.

AMONG THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 4 OF THE CIRCULAR FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY AN EMPLOYEE IN THE SETTLEMENT OF AN UNEXPIRED LEASE AT HIS OLD OFFICIAL STATION IS THAT THE DWELLING AT THE OLD STATION WAS THE EMPLOYEE'S ACTUAL RESIDENCE AT THE TIME HE WAS INFORMED OF HIS TRANSFER.

THE RECORD IN YOUR CASE, AS ADMINISTRATIVELY REPORTED, ESTABLISHES THAT YOU WERE NOT RESIDING IN THE LEASED OR RENTED PREMISES AT FORT WAYNE THROUGH WHICH YOU INCURRED A LOSS AT THE TIME OF YOUR TRANSFER TO MILWAUKEE.

THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO MODIFY THE REGULATIONS TO COVER YOUR CASE.

IN REGARD TO THE ADDITIONAL MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE CLAIMED BY YOU UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE CIRCULAR THE DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY REPORTS THAT YOUR IMMEDIATE FAMILY PREVIOUSLY HAD MOVED, TOGETHER WITH YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS, TO MILWAUKEE AND OCCUPIED A DWELLING HOUSE THERE FOR REASONS OF A PERSONAL NATURE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR LATER TRANSFER FROM FORT WAYNE TO MILWAUKEE. WHEN YOU SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED TO MILWAUKEE, WE UNDERSTAND THAT YOU MERELY JOINED YOUR FAMILY AT THE RESIDENCE PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED BY THEM.

ON THE RECORD BEFORE US WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT YOUR TRANSFER FROM FORT WAYNE TO MILWAUKEE DID NOT INVOLVE THE INCURRENCE OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES IN EXCESS OF THOSE USUALLY ALLOWABLE TO AN EMPLOYEE WITHOUT AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY.

THEREFORE, THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF MARCH 4, 1968, DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM MUST BE SUSTAINED.

THE SETTLEMENTS OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE ARE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE UPON THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT BUT DO NOT PRECLUDE PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURTS.