B-162828, NOV. 16, 1967

B-162828: Nov 16, 1967

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

EMPLOYEE WHOSE DAUGHTER WAS REQUIRED TO RETURN A TUITION PAYMENT BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT HONOR A PLEDGE TO REMAIN AT THE SCHOOL TO TEACH MAY NOT HAVE THE EXPENSE REGARDED AS COMING WITHIN THE EXPENSES FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT IS AUTHORIZED UNDER SEC. 3.1B OF BOB CIR. BY SIGNING THIS PLEDGE SHE WAS RELIEVED OF PAYING TUITION OF $100 PER SEMESTER FOR THE FALL AND SPRING SEMESTER OF THE 1965-66 SCHOOL YEAR FOR HER FRESHMAN YEAR. WAS TOLD THAT SHE WOULD HAVE TO RETURN THE RELIEVED TUITION IF SHE DID NOT PLAN TO STAY IN MARYLAND AND TEACH AFTER GRADUATION AND BEFORE THEY WOULD SEND TRANSCRIPTS OF THE GRADES. IT WAS FORTUNATE THAT TOWSON STATE COLLEGE DID NOT CHARGE HER OUT-OF-STATE TUITION FOR THE SPRING SEMESTER.'.

B-162828, NOV. 16, 1967

EMPLOYEES - TRANSFERS - PUBLIC LAW 89-516 - MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES DECISION TO CERTIFYING OFFICER OF THE BUREAU OF MINES DISAPPROVING CERTIFICATION OF VOUCHER FOR MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES INCIDENT TO TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEE FROM WASHINGTON TO SAN FRANCISCO. EMPLOYEE WHOSE DAUGHTER WAS REQUIRED TO RETURN A TUITION PAYMENT BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT HONOR A PLEDGE TO REMAIN AT THE SCHOOL TO TEACH MAY NOT HAVE THE EXPENSE REGARDED AS COMING WITHIN THE EXPENSES FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT IS AUTHORIZED UNDER SEC. 3.1B OF BOB CIR. NO. A 56.

TO MRS. JEANNETTE B. WILBANKS:

YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 23, 1967, REQUESTS OUR ADVICE CONCERNING THE PROPRIETY OF CERTIFYING FOR PAYMENT A VOUCHER IN FAVOR OF MR. WILLIAM H. KERNS, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE BUREAU OF MINES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $400 REPRESENTING REIMBURSEMENT OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED BY MR. KERNS IN CONNECTION WITH HIS OFFICIAL CHANGE OF STATION FROM WASHINGTON, D. C. TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. MR. KERNS EXPLAINS THE AMOUNT CLAIMED ON HIS VOUCHER AS FOLLOWS: "SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM

"UPON ENROLLMENT AT TOWSON STATE COLLEGE, BALTIMORE, MD., MY DAUGHTER, SUSAN A. KERNS, SIGNED A PLEDGE THAT SHE WOULD TEACH IN MARYLAND FOR 2 YEARS FOLLOWING GRADUATION. BY SIGNING THIS PLEDGE SHE WAS RELIEVED OF PAYING TUITION OF $100 PER SEMESTER FOR THE FALL AND SPRING SEMESTER OF THE 1965-66 SCHOOL YEAR FOR HER FRESHMAN YEAR, AND THE FALL SEMESTER OF THE 1966-67 SCHOOL YEAR. FOLLOWING MY TRANSFER FROM WASH. D. C. TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. ON JAN. 1, 1967, SHE ASKED FOR A TRANSCRIPT OF HER GRADES FOR APPLYING FOR ADMITTANCE TO A CALIFORNIA STATE COLLEGE, AND WAS TOLD THAT SHE WOULD HAVE TO RETURN THE RELIEVED TUITION IF SHE DID NOT PLAN TO STAY IN MARYLAND AND TEACH AFTER GRADUATION AND BEFORE THEY WOULD SEND TRANSCRIPTS OF THE GRADES. WHEN SHE ENROLLED FOR THE SPRING SEMESTER OF THE 1966-67 SCHOOL YEAR, SHE HAD TO PAY THE $100 TUITION FEE BECAUSE OF HER IMPENDING TRANSFER TO A CALIFORNIA STATE COLLEGE. IT WAS FORTUNATE THAT TOWSON STATE COLLEGE DID NOT CHARGE HER OUT-OF-STATE TUITION FOR THE SPRING SEMESTER.'

SECTION 3.1B OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED OCTOBER 12, 1966, IS AS OLLOWS:

"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 THAT THE EXPENSE CLAIMED IS NOT ONE FALLING WITHIN ANY OF THE FIVE ENUMERATED CATEGORIES AND IS NOT ONE THAT IS COMMON TO "LIVING QUARTERS, FURNISHINGS AND HOUSEHOLD LIANCES.' WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THE COST CLAIMED MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN INCURRED HAD NOT THE PERMANENT STATION OF THE EMPLOYEE BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM WASHINGTON, D. C. TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, NEVERTHELESS, IT IS NOT BELIEVED THAT A COST SIMILAR TO THAT HERE INVOLVED IS CONTEMPLATED AS REIMBURSABLE UNDER THE REGULATION.

ACCORDINGLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CLARIFICATION OF THE REGULATION TO COVER EXPENSES OF THIS TYPE, WE FIND NO BASIS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE ITEM CLAIMED. THE VOUCHER WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.