B-163746, JUL. 26, 1968

B-163746: Jul 26, 1968

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

HOGAN: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED MARCH 4. OUR DECISION IS ALSO REQUESTED AS TO THE MEMBER'S ENTITLEMENT TO MILEAGE FOR HIS DEPENDENT'S TRAVEL FROM ROCKVILLE. LIEUTENANT EDWARDS WAS DIRECTED TO PROCEED ON OR ABOUT JANUARY 16. THE OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED PER DIEM. THE OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO CONTINUE COAST PILOT SHORE INSPECTION IN VARIOUS PLACES ON THE WEST COAST THAT HAD NOT BEEN COVERED BY THE ORDERS OF JANUARY 3. IN YOUR LETTER YOU STATE THAT LIEUTENANT EDWARDS WAS DETACHED FROM HIS DUTY POST AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON JANUARY 13. YOU SAY THAT LIEUTENANT EDWARDS' SITUATION IS ONE OF A NUMBER OF ANTICIPATED CASES INVOLVING ASSIGNMENTS OF MEMBERS TO INDETERMINATE TEMPORARY DUTY.

B-163746, JUL. 26, 1968

TO MR. R. P. HOGAN:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED MARCH 4, 1968, (AD 571 X 12), AND ATTACHMENTS, REQUESTING A DECISION AS TO THE ENTITLEMENT OF LIEUTENANT BOBBY D. EDWARDS, USESSA, ON A SUBMITTED VOUCHER FOR MILEAGE FOR PERSONAL AND DEPENDENT TRAVEL FROM SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, TO ROCKVILLE, MARYLNAD, PER DIEM TO COVER A PERIOD OF DELAY IN TRAVEL, AND TO DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE INCIDENT TO ORDERS OF JANUARY 3, JUNE 5, OCTOBER 20 AND 24, 1967. OUR DECISION IS ALSO REQUESTED AS TO THE MEMBER'S ENTITLEMENT TO MILEAGE FOR HIS DEPENDENT'S TRAVEL FROM ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND, TO SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED BELOW.

BY TRAVEL ORDER 67-MCD-30, JANUARY 3, 1967, LIEUTENANT EDWARDS WAS DIRECTED TO PROCEED ON OR ABOUT JANUARY 16, 1967, FROM HIS PERMANENT DUTY STATION, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND, TO SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, AND OTHER PLACES ON THE WEST COAST, INCLUDED IN U.S. COAST PILOT 7, TO PERFORM COAST PILOT SHORE INSPECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH COAST PILOT MANUAL (1964 EDITION). THE TRAVEL ORDER INDICATED THAT THIS CONSTITUTED INDETERMINATE TEMPORARY SHORE DUTY, AND THE OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED PER DIEM, TRAVEL VIA PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLE, DETERMINED TO BE MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT, AND PACKING, CRATING, SHIPPING AND UNCRATING OF HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS OR STORAGE OF THE GOODS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH M8205 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS.

BY AMENDING ORDERS DATED JUNE 5, 1967, THE OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO CONTINUE COAST PILOT SHORE INSPECTION IN VARIOUS PLACES ON THE WEST COAST THAT HAD NOT BEEN COVERED BY THE ORDERS OF JANUARY 3, 1967. ORDERS DATED OCTOBER 20, 1967, DIRECTED THAT UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE DUTIES ASSIGNED BY THE ORDERS OF JANUARY 3 AND JUNE 5, 1967, THE MEMBER SHOULD RETURN AND RESUME DUTY AT ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND. ORDERS DATED OCTOBER 24, 1967, PURPORTED TO AMEND THE ORDERS OF OCTOBER 20, 1967, TO AUTHORIZE TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS.

IN YOUR LETTER YOU STATE THAT LIEUTENANT EDWARDS WAS DETACHED FROM HIS DUTY POST AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON JANUARY 13, 1967, AND DEPARTED ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND, VIA PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLE AT 8:00 A.M. ON JANUARY 14, 1967, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS WIFE; THAT HE ARRIVED AT SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, AT 1:00 P.M., ON JANUARY 31, 1967, AFTER AN AUTHORIZED PERIOD OF LEAVE EN ROUTE AND COMMENCED INSPECTION ON THE COAST PILOT PROJECT, AND THAT HE HAD NOT CLAIMED OR BEEN REIMBURSED FOR THE TRAVEL OF HIS WIFE ON THE OUTGOING TRIP. FURTHER, YOU STATED THAT AT 6:00 A.M., ON DECEMBER 8, 1967, HE AND HIS WIFE DEPARTED FROM SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, AND TRAVELED VIA PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLE TO ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND, WHERE HE ARRIVED AT 1:00 P.M. ON JANUARY 15, 1968, AFTER A PERIOD OF AUTHORIZED LEAVE EN ROUTE.

YOU SAY THAT LIEUTENANT EDWARDS' SITUATION IS ONE OF A NUMBER OF ANTICIPATED CASES INVOLVING ASSIGNMENTS OF MEMBERS TO INDETERMINATE TEMPORARY DUTY, WHICH POSE NUMEROUS QUESTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH WHAT ALLOWANCES ARE PROPERLY REIMBURSABLE UNDER THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, AMONG WHICH ARE THE FOLLOWING:

(1) DOES THE ASSIGNMENT OF AN OFFICER, UPON RELIEF FROM INDETERMINATE TEMPORARY SHORE DUTY, TO HIS "FORMER PERMANENT DUTY STATION" (THE PLACE AT WHICH HE WAS PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED FOR PERMANENT DUTY PRIOR TO DEPARTURE ON INDETERMINATE TEMPORARY DUTY) AS DESCRIBED HEREIN CONSTITUTE A PERMANENT CHANGE-OF-STATION?

(2) DOES THE PERMANENT ASSIGNMENT OF THE OFFICER, UPON RELIEF FROM INDETERMINATE TEMPORARY DUTY, TO THE PLACE AT WHICH HE WAS RELIEVED FROM INDETERMINATE TEMPORARY DUTY OR TO ANOTHER LOCATION UPON RELIEF FROM SUCH DUTY CONSTITUTE A PERMANENT CHANGE-OF-STATION?

(3) IF THE ANSWERS TO (1) AND (2) ABOVE ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, SHOULD THE OFFICER BE PAID THE MONETARY ALLOWANCE IN LIEU OF TRANSPORTATION, AS APPLICABLE TO A PERMANENT CHANGE-OF-STATION, FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED AT PERSONAL EXPENSE FROM THE PLACE AT WHICH HE WAS RELIEVED FROM INDETERMINATE TEMPORARY SHORE DUTY TO HIS "FORMER PERMANENT DUTY STATION" OR TO HIS NEW DUTY STATION?

(4) IF THE ANSWERS TO (1) AND (2) ABOVE ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, SHOULD THE OFFICER'S DEPENDENTS WHO WERE AUTHORIZED AND DID ACCOMPANY HIM ON THE ASSIGNMENT BE PAID THE MONETARY ALLOWANCE IN LIEU OF TRANSPORTATION, AS PAYABLE IN CONNECTION WITH A PERMANENT CHANGE-OF STATION, FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED FROM THE OLD PERMANENT DUTY STATION TO THE INDETERMINATE TEMPORARY DUTY STATION AND TO THE EMPLOYEE'S NEXT ASSIGNED PERMANENT DUTY STATION, INCLUDING RETURN TO THE "OLD PERMANENT STATION" IF THE EMPLOYEE IS REASSIGNED THERETO, UPON THE EMPLOYEE'S RELIEF FROM INDETERMINATE TEMPORARY DUTY?

(5) IF THE ANSWERS TO (1), (2), (3) AND (4) ABOVE ARE IN THE NEGATIVE, SHOULD THE OFFICER BE PAID MILEAGE AND PER DIEM AS AUTHORIZED FOR TEMPORARY DUTY AND HIS DEPENDENTS PAID THE MONETARY ALLOWANCE IN LIEU OF TRANSPORTATION AS APPLICABLE FOR A PERMANENT CHANGE-OF-STATION FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED AT PERSONAL EXPENSE BETWEEN THE POINTS INVOLVED?

(6) IF THE ANSWERS TO (3), (4) AND (5) ABOVE ARE IN THE NEGATIVE, WHAT ALLOWANCES ARE PROPERLY PAYABLE FOR THE TRAVEL OF THE OFFICER AND HIS DEPENDENTS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS?

(7)IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ANSWERS TO THE FIRST FIVE QUESTIONS ABOVE, MAY A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE AS AUTHORIZED BY CHAPTER 9 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS BE PAID TO AN OFFICER INCIDENT TO THE RELOCATION OF HIS DEPENDENTS RESULTING FROM TERMINATION OF INDETERMINATE TEMPORARY DUTY?

A DETERMINATION OF THE PROPER ALLOWANCES PAYABLE FOR LIEUTENANT EDWARDS' PERSONAL TRAVEL AND THE QUESTION OF HIS RIGHT TO TRANSPORTATION FOR HIS DEPENDENT AND A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE DEPENDS ON WHETHER HE WAS REQUIRED UNDER THE VARIOUS TRAVEL ORDERS CITED TO MAKE THE EQUIVALENT OF A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION, INASMUCH AS THE BASIS FOR PERSONAL TRAVEL ALLOWANCES VARIES AS TO WHETHER FOR TEMPORARY DUTY OR PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION TRAVEL AND THE RIGHT TO TRANSPORTATION FOR DEPENDENTS AND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE, WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT HERE INVOLVED, MAY ACCRUE ONLY INCIDENT TO A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION. AN ASSIGNMENT TO INDETERMINATE TEMPORARY DUTY DOES NOT, PER SE, CONSTITUTE IT THE EQUIVALENT OF A PERMANENT DUTY ASSIGNMENT.

IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT PERMANENT STATION ASSIGNMENTS MAY RESULT IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE MEMBERS ARE ORDERED TO REPLACEMENT POOLS, SCHOOLS, OR SIMILAR STATIONS NORMALLY INVOLVING TEMPORARY DUTY ASSIGNMENTS, FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD UNDER ORDERS WHICH DO NOT PROVIDE FOR FURTHER ASSIGNMENT TO ANOTHER STATION AND THEIR RETURN TO THE OLD PERMANENT STATION IS NOT CONTEMPLATED. CONSISTENT WITH THAT CONCEPT, ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS WERE TO THE EFFECT THAT ASSIGNMENTS OF THAT NATURE FOR MORE THAN 5 MONTHS' DURATION WOULD BE ON A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION BASIS. 24 COMP. GEN. 667; 46 COMP. GEN. 852.

THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, UNDER THE HEADING "ASSIGNED TO INDETERMINATE TEMPORARY DUTY" (PAR. M7007), PROVIDES THAT WHEN A MEMBER IS ASSIGNED TO TEMPORARY DUTY AWAY FROM HIS PERMANENT STATION UNDER ORDERS WHICH DO NOT PROVIDE FOR RETURN TO HIS PERMANENT STATION OR DO NOT SPECIFY OR IMPLY ANY LIMIT TO THE PERIOD OF ABSENCE FROM THE PERMANENT STATION BUT ANTICIPATE THE TEMPORARY DUTY TO BE FOR A DURATION OF 20 WEEKS OR MORE AT ANY ONE DUTY STATION, TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS IS AUTHORIZED TO THAT TEMPORARY DUTY STATION NOT TO EXCEED ENTITLEMENT FROM THE PERMANENT TO THE TEMPORARY STATION. SUCH AUTHORIZATION IS MADE ON THE BASIS THAT A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION EVOLVES IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATED TO GIVE RISE TO THE PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS BENEFITS. ASSIGNMENTS NOT MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS CLEARLY MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED TO RESULT IN A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION SITUATION.

WHILE LIEUTENANT EDWARDS' ORDERS DESIGNATED HIS DUTY ASSIGNMENT THEREUNDER AS "INDETERMINATE TEMPORARY SHORE DUTY," THERE IS NO INDICATION THEREIN THAT DUTY OF 20 WEEKS OR MORE WAS CONTEMPLATED AT ANY ONE PLACE AND THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ALL ASSIGNMENTS THEREUNDER WERE OF SHORTER DURATION. ALSO, ON EACH OF THE ORDERS THE OFFICER'S CURRENT OFFICIAL STATION WAS SHOWN TO BE ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND, AND NOTHING IN THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THERE EVER EXISTED ANY INTENTION OTHER THAN THAT HE WAS TO RETURN TO ROCKVILLE UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE TEMPORARY DUTIES ASSIGNED.

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWN, IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT ROCKVILLE REMAINED LIEUTENANT EDWARDS' PERMANENT DUTY STATION THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD IN QUESTION AND THAT ALL TRAVEL INVOLVED WAS IN A TEMPORARY DUTY STATUS. CONSEQUENTLY, NO AUTHORITY EXISTS FOR THE PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION TRANSPORTATION BENEFITS FOR HIS DEPENDENT WIFE OR FOR THE PAYMENT OF A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE.

LIEUTENANT EDWARDS' TRAVEL FROM SEATTLE TO ROCKVILLE WAS NOT PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION TRAVEL. CONSEQUENTLY, HE IS ENTITLED ONLY TO A MONETARY ALLOWANCE IN LIEU OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE OFFICIAL DISTANCE FROM SEATTLE TO ROCKVILLE AS AUTHORIZED BY PARAGRAPH M4203-3B (2) OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS AND PER DIEM AS AUTHORIZED BY PARAGRAPH M4202-5 OF THE REGULATIONS FOR THE ACTUAL TIME NECESSARY TO PERFORM THAT TRAVEL. THE VOUCHER WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT ONLY TO THAT EXTENT.

SINCE THE SUBMITTED CASE DOES NOT INVOLVE INDETERMINATE TEMPORARY DUTY, THE GENERAL QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED IN YOUR LETTER AND QUOTED ABOVE, MAY NOT BE ANSWERED ON THE BASIS OF YOUR PRESENT REQUEST. IF ANY OF THE OTHER ANTICIPATED CASES GIVE RISE TO ANY OR ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS AND DOUBT EXISTS AS TO THE ANSWER, THE CASE MAY BE REFERRED HERE FOR DECISION.