B-163345, OCT. 22, 1969

B-163345: Oct 22, 1969

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

EMPLOYEE INTEREST- REIMBURSEMENT BASIS WHERE EMPLOYEE WAS APPOINTED TO OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY (OEO) FOLLOWING HIS RESIGNATION FROM AGENCY OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES FROM SAIGON TO LOS ANGELES. WAS ALLOWED TRAVEL AND PLACE OF ACTUAL RESIDENCE BEFORE APPOINTMENT TO AID AND DUTY STATION WITH OEO AT TIME OF EMPLOYMENT. IS SUSTAINED SINCE EMPLOYEE'S SIGNED STATEMENT PERSUASIVELY INDICATES THAT CHANGE OF EMPLOYMENT WAS AT HIS REQUEST. SUGGESTS EMPLOYMENT WAS PRIMARILY FOR EMPLOYEE'S CONVENIENCE OR BENEFIT WITHIN MEANING OF 5 U.S.C. 5724 (H). THE FACTS IN YOUR CASE WERE FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF MARCH 6. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR SETTLEMENT OF MARCH 6. SINCE YOUR CHANGE FROM AID TO OEO WAS PRIMARILY FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE OR BENEFIT AND THERE WAS NO TRANSFER BETWEEN YOUR OFFICIAL STATIONS WITH AID.

B-163345, OCT. 22, 1969

TRAVEL EXPENSES--TRANSFERS--GOVERNMENT V. EMPLOYEE INTEREST- REIMBURSEMENT BASIS WHERE EMPLOYEE WAS APPOINTED TO OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY (OEO) FOLLOWING HIS RESIGNATION FROM AGENCY OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES FROM SAIGON TO LOS ANGELES, CALIF; FORMER DEVELOPMENT (AID) WHILE ON HOME LEAVE, AND WAS ALLOWED TRAVEL AND PLACE OF ACTUAL RESIDENCE BEFORE APPOINTMENT TO AID AND DUTY STATION WITH OEO AT TIME OF EMPLOYMENT, SETTLEMENT DENYING TRAVEL EXPENSES FROM SELECTED PLACE OF HOME LEAVE (TOLEDO, OHIO) TO LOS ANGELES, INCIDENT TO ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT WITH OEO, IS SUSTAINED SINCE EMPLOYEE'S SIGNED STATEMENT PERSUASIVELY INDICATES THAT CHANGE OF EMPLOYMENT WAS AT HIS REQUEST, AND, NOTWITHSTANDING FINDING OF "ADVANTAGE" BY OEO, SUGGESTS EMPLOYMENT WAS PRIMARILY FOR EMPLOYEE'S CONVENIENCE OR BENEFIT WITHIN MEANING OF 5 U.S.C. 5724 (H).

TO MR. ROBERT C. SLONAGER:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 2, 1969, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR SETTLEMENT OF MARCH 6, 1968, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES ALLEGED TO BE DUE UNDER THE TRANSFER OF STATION PROVISIONS OF 5 U.S.C. 5724 AND 5724A, IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR APPOINTMENT TO THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY (OEO) FOLLOWING YOUR RESIGNATION FROM THE AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (AID).

THE FACTS IN YOUR CASE WERE FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF MARCH 6, 1968, AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR SETTLEMENT OF MARCH 6, 1968, SINCE YOUR CHANGE FROM AID TO OEO WAS PRIMARILY FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE OR BENEFIT AND THERE WAS NO TRANSFER BETWEEN YOUR OFFICIAL STATIONS WITH AID, SAIGON, AND OEO, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, BUT THAT THE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION INVOLVED, IN FACT, WAS FROM YOUR SELECTED PLACE OF HOME LEAVE (TOLEDO, OHIO) TO LOS ANGELES.

SECTION 1.3 OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED OCTOBER 12, 1966, PROVIDES IN PART AS FOLLOWS:

"A. ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS. WHEN AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED BY SUCH OFFICIAL OR OFFICIALS AS THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT MAY DESIGNATE, TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES AND APPLICABLE ALLOWANCES AS PROVIDED IN THESE REGULATIONS SHALL BE PAID IN THE CASE OF (1) TRANSFER OF AN EMPLOYEE IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT FROM ONE OFFICIAL STATION TO ANOTHER FOR PERMANENT DUTY, BUT IN NO CASE IN WHICH THE TRANSFER IS PRIMARILY FOR THE CONVENIENCE OR BENEFIT OF THE EMPLOYEE OR AT HIS OWN REQUEST * * *".

THE QUOTED PROVISION CONTEMPLATES REIMBURSEMENT TO AN EMPLOYEE FOR THE COST OF TRANSPORTING HIS FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD GOODS WHEN SUCH TRANSPORTATION IS INCIDENT TO A CHANGE OF OFFICIAL STATION NECESSITATED BY EXIGENCIES OF THE SERVICE. THE AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SEPARATION DOCUMENT OF NOVEMBER 1967 INDICATES THAT BECAUSE OF YOUR FAILURE TO RETURN TO SAIGON AFTER HOME LEAVE, YOU WERE CONSTRUCTIVELY SEPARATED FROM THAT AGENCY FOR TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES AT YOUR FORMER PLACE OF ACTUAL RESIDENCE IN LOS ANGELES, A DETERMINATION WHICH WOULD CONSTRUCTIVELY PLACE YOU IN LOS ANGELES AT THE TIME OF YOUR HIRE BY OEO.

AS STATED BY YOU IT MAY BE THAT OEO HAD A PARTICULAR INTEREST IN OBTAINING YOUR SERVICES. WE NOTE IN THAT REGARD THAT OEO IN STANDARD FORM 50, DATED OCTOBER 14, 1966, AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF YOUR TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES "AS ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT.' HOWEVER, IN YOUR SIGNED STATEMENT OF APRIL 17, 1967, YOU SAY IN PART AS FOLLOWS: "MAJOR SURGERY AND OTHER PERSONAL FACTORS CAUSED A CHANGE IN PLANS. CONTACTED OEO FOR EMPLOYMENT AND WAS ADVISED IN EARLY AUGUST OF A FIRM JOB OFFER WITH THE OFFICE OF INSPECTION IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA.'

THAT STATEMENT PERSUASIVELY INDICATES THAT THE CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT FROM AID TO OEO WAS "AT YOUR REQUEST" AND, NOTWITHSTANDING A FINDING OF "ADVANTAGE" BY OEO, SUGGESTS THE EMPLOYMENT WAS PRIMARILY FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE OR BENEFIT WITHIN THE MEANING OF 5 U.S.C. 5724 (H).

ASSUMING THE VALIDITY OF YOUR VIEW THAT SAIGON WAS YOUR OFFICIAL STATION AT THE TIME OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH OEO, THE FACT REMAINS THAT AID HAS ALLOWED YOU AN AMOUNT WHICH EQUALS OR EXCEEDS THE COST OF THE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION FROM SAIGON TO LOS ANGELES, YOUR DUTY STATION WITH OEO AT TIME OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH THAT AGENCY. WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY AUTHORITY FOR PAYMENT OF THE ADDITIONAL TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES INCURRED FOR TRAVEL FROM TOLEDO TO LOS ANGELES INCIDENT TO ACCEPTANCE OF YOUR APPOINTMENT WITH OEO.

ACCORDINGLY, WE MUST SUSTAIN THE ACTION TAKEN IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF MARCH 6, 1968, IN DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM.