B-163696, APR. 25, 1968

B-163696: Apr 25, 1968

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

YOUNG: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 20. YOUR CLAIM WAS TRANSMITTED BY FORWARDING LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 28. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF FEES AND CHARGES FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF PARKING A PRIVATELY-OWNED VEHICLE AT A PLACE OF DUTY AT WHICH ONE IS REQUIRED TO BE BY COMPETENT MILITARY ORDERS. IS CONSIDERED AN EXPENSE REIMBURSABLE WITHIN THE SPIRIT. THE LETTER STATES FURTHER THAT COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION IS AVAILABLE. ITS COST WOULD MAKE ITS USE MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE USE OF A PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLE AND ALSO THE ROUTES AND SCHEDULES ARE COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SCHEDULE REQUIRED BY THE PERSONNEL. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ADVISED THAT FUNDS ARE APPROPRIATED FOR COSTS OF NECESSARY TRAVEL INCIDENT TO THE CONDUCT OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND THAT CLAIMS INVOLVING PARKING SPACE FOR AN AUTOMOBILE WHICH IS USED AS A MODE OF TRANSPORTATION FOR DAILY REPORTING TO AND FROM WORK INVOLVES NO OFFICIAL TRAVEL.

B-163696, APR. 25, 1968

TO MAJOR ROGER Q. YOUNG:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 20, 1968, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR SETTLEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 14, 1968, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR $36 AS REIMBURSEMENT FOR FACULTY AUTOMOBILE PARKING FEE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR DUTY AS AN ROTC INSTRUCTOR AT OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY FOR THE 1967-68 SCHOOL YEAR.

YOUR CLAIM WAS TRANSMITTED BY FORWARDING LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 28, 1967, FROM THE U.S. ARMY ROTC INSTRUCTOR GROUP, OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLARIFICATION OF THE PROCEDURES TO FOLLOW IN SUCH CASES AS WELL AS TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE CLAIM ITSELF.

IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF FEES AND CHARGES FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF PARKING A PRIVATELY-OWNED VEHICLE AT A PLACE OF DUTY AT WHICH ONE IS REQUIRED TO BE BY COMPETENT MILITARY ORDERS, IS CONSIDERED AN EXPENSE REIMBURSABLE WITHIN THE SPIRIT, IF NOT THE LETTER, OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS. THE LETTER STATES FURTHER THAT COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION IS AVAILABLE, BUT ITS COST WOULD MAKE ITS USE MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE USE OF A PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLE AND ALSO THE ROUTES AND SCHEDULES ARE COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SCHEDULE REQUIRED BY THE PERSONNEL.

INDORSEMENT BY HEADQUARTERS, UNITED STATES CONTINENTAL ARMY COMMAND, FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA, STATED THAT IN RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS SIMILAR REQUESTS, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ADVISED THAT FUNDS ARE APPROPRIATED FOR COSTS OF NECESSARY TRAVEL INCIDENT TO THE CONDUCT OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND THAT CLAIMS INVOLVING PARKING SPACE FOR AN AUTOMOBILE WHICH IS USED AS A MODE OF TRANSPORTATION FOR DAILY REPORTING TO AND FROM WORK INVOLVES NO OFFICIAL TRAVEL, THE EXPENSE BEING A PERSONAL OBLIGATION.

THE CLAIM WAS TRANSMITTED TO OUR CLAIMS DIVISION FOR SETTLEMENT AND BY SETTLEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 14, 1968, IT WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT THE EXPENSE OF TRAVEL FROM HOME TO THE USUAL PLACE OF DUTY IS A PERSONAL OBLIGATION AND NOT REIMBURSABLE. IN YOUR LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 20, 1968, YOU CONTEND THAT THE PARKING FEE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE TRAVEL EXPENSES TO AND FROM WORK, WHICH EXPENSES YOU ACKNOWLEDGE ARE NOT REIMBURSABLE, BUT THAT THE PARKING FEE IS A "CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT" WHILE ASSIGNED AT THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY UNDER COMPETENT ARMY ORDERS.

WITH RESPECT TO YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE PARKING FEE BE CONSIDERED AS A "CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT" INCIDENT TO YOUR ASSIGNMENT AND PRESUMABLY THEREFORE SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS IN THE NATURE OF AN ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCE BECAUSE OF CONDITIONS AT YOUR PLACE OF DUTY, YOUR ATTENTION IS DIRECTED TO 5 U.S.C. 5536, WHICH SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT AN EMPLOYEE OR A MEMBER OF A UNIFORMED SERVICE WHOSE PAY OR ALLOWANCE IS FIXED BY LAW OR REGULATIONS, MAY NOT RECEIVE ADDITIONAL PAY OR ALLOWANCE FOR ANY OTHER SERVICE OR DUTY, UNLESS THE SAME IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW.

TITLE 37, U.S.C. GOVERNING THE PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES, DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ANY ADDITIONAL PAY OR EXTRA ALLOWANCE TO COVER THE EXPENSE OF AUTOMOBILE PARKING BY MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES INCIDENT TO REPORTING FOR DUTY AT HIS ASSIGNED STATION. THEREFORE, THE LACK OF AVAILABLE FREE PARKING SPACE AT YOUR DUTY STATION, NECESSITATING THE PAYMENT OF A PARKING FEE, AFFORDS NO LEGAL BASIS TO REIMBURSE YOU FOR THAT EXPENSE. SUCH EXPENSE, LIKE THE EXPENSE OF TRAVEL FROM A MEMBER'S HOME OR PLACE OF ABODE TO HIS ASSIGNED PERMANENT DUTY STATION, IS REGARDED AS THE PERSONAL OBLIGATION OF THE MEMBER. SEE, GENERALLY, 42 COMP. GEN. 612 AND 45 COMP. GEN. 30.

SECTION 408 OF TITLE 37, U.S.C. PROVIDES FOR THE PAYMENT OF TRAVEL OR TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES INCURRED BY A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES WHILE CONDUCTING OFFICIAL BUSINESS OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF HIS STATION. SUCH EXPENSES INCLUDE TRAIN, BUS, TAXICAB, STREETCAR, FERRY, BRIDGE AND SIMILAR FARES AND TOLLS, OR THE USE OF A PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLE, WHEN AUTHORIZED, AT A FIXED RATE PER MILE. SUCH EXPENSES MAY BE DEFRAYED BY THE DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY UNDER WHICH HE IS SERVING, OR THE MEMBER IS ENTITLED TO BE REIMBURSED FOR THE EXPENSE.

IN DECISION OF JANUARY 23, 1962, 41 COMP. GEN. 475, COPY ENCLOSED, WE HELD, HOWEVER, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 (M) OF THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1954, 68 STAT. 1129, NOW RECODIFIED AS 37 U.S.C. 408, CITED ABOVE, DO NOT AUTHORIZE THE PAYMENT OF PARKING FEES TO MILITARY PERSONNEL OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE CONDUCT OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THEIR DUTY STATIONS.