B-164818, JUL. 30, 1968

B-164818, JUL. 30, 1968

TO MRS. ALICE R. BAKER:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 19, 1968, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING THAT WE RECONSIDER OUR CLAIMS DIVISION SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED JUNE 5, 1968, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 13, 1967, TO APRIL 30, 1967, AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BECAUSE THERE IS NO AUTHORITY TO ALLOW PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE AT AN EMPLOYEE'S PERMANENT DUTY STATION. YOU CONTEND THAT YOU WERE ON TEMPORARY DUTY AT WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR A PERIOD OF THIRTY DAYS PRIOR TO YOUR TRANSFER. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT BY TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION DATED MARCH 2, 1967, YOU WERE AUTHORIZED TO TRAVEL FROM LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, TO WASHINGTON, D.C., "WITH EOD 13 MARCH 1967.' ALSO, UNDER PARAGRAPH 18, IT IS STATED THAT: "EMPLOYEE WILL BE ON A 30 DAY TEMPORARY DUTY ASSIGNMENT AT WASH. D.C.' IT IS NOTED THAT ROUND-TRIP TRAVEL WAS NOT AUTHORIZED WHICH WOULD INDICATE A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION WAS INTENDED AND ALSO THAT TRAVEL EXPENSES OF DEPENDENTS AND TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS WERE AUTHORIZED WHICH WOULD ONLY BE PROPER IN CONNECTION WITH A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION. ALSO, ITEM 12 OF THE AUTHORIZATION, TYPE OF ORDERS, SHOWS AN X IN THE BOX TITLED "PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION.'

YOU CONTEND THAT YOUR OFFICIAL REPORTING DATE IN WASHINGTON, D.C., WAS APRIL 30, 1967. YOU LEASED YOUR HOUSE ON MARCH 4, 1967, PUT YOUR FURNITURE IN STORAGE AND PLACED SOME OF IT ON A MOVE ORDER AND BOARDED YOUR DAUGHTER ATTENDING COLLEGE IN A PRIVATE HOME. YOU ACTUALLY TRAVELED ON MARCH 7, 1967, BY AIR, WITH TWO DEPENDENTS ON ONE-WAY TICKETS FROM LOS ANGELES TO WASHINGTON, D.C. THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL WAS REQUESTED TO CLARIFY YOUR REPORTING DATE AND A MEMORANDUM FROM THE PERSONNEL DIVISION DATED JULY 7, 1967, STATED "MRS. BAKER ERRONEOUSLY INSERTED APRIL 30, 1967, AS HER DATE TO REPORT TO NEW DUTY STATION UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT SHE WAS IN TEMPORARY DUTY STATUS UP TO THAT DATE. THE CORRECT DATE OF HER REPORTING WAS MARCH 7, 1967.' THE CANCELLATION OF THE VARIOUS TRAVEL ORDERS AND THE REASONS THEREFORE WERE EXPLAINED IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF JUNE 5, 1967, AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE.

IT IS NOTED THAT INCIDENT TO YOUR PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION, YOU CLAIMED AND RECEIVED TEMPORARY QUARTERS ALLOWANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $448 COVERING THE PERIOD APRIL 10 THROUGH MAY 9, 1967, WHICH COVERS PART OF THE SAME PERIOD FOR WHICH YOU ALSO CLAIM PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE FOR TEMPORARY DUTY. YOU WERE ALSO ALLOWED $200 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES INCIDENT TO YOUR PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION.

YOU SAY THAT THE ATTEMPT OF JUNE 16, 1967, TO AMEND THE TRAVEL ORDER DATED MAY 9, 1967, TO SHOW IN ITEM 7, APRIL 30, 1967, INSTEAD OF MARCH 7, 1967, WHICH MR. FISHER REFUSED TO SIGN WAS AN ADMISSION OF THE AGENCY THAT YOU HAD BEEN SENT TO WASHINGTON, D.C. ON TEMPORARY DUTY AND THIS WAS AN ATTEMPT OF THE DEPARTMENT HEADS TO WILLFULLY RIGHT THE WRONG THAT HAD BEEN DONE YOU. AS STATED BY YOU, THIS ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE TRAVEL ORDER SHOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF YOUR TRANSFER WAS NEVER APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIAL. FURTHERMORE, THERE IS A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED JUNE 16, 1967, ON FILE IN OUR OFFICE WITH THE FOLLOWING NOTATION TYPED ON THE BOTTOM:

"THIS IS THE UNSIGNED LETTER REFERRED TO IN MRS. BAKER'S CORRESPONDENCE. THE AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE STATED REPORTING DATE TO THE POSITION IN WASHINGTON, D.C. SINCE THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT MRS. BAKER CONTEMPLATES RETURNING TO LOS ANGELES, THE DIRECTOR, BUDGET AND FINANCE DIVISION REFUSED TO PROCESS THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT.'

SECTION 6.8 OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED AN EMPLOYEE AT HIS PERMANENT DUTY STATION. FOR PER DIEM PURPOSES AN EMPLOYEE'S HEADQUARTERS IS DEEMED TO HAVE CHANGED UPON HIS ARRIVAL AT HIS NEW HEADQUARTERS. FROM THE RECORD IT IS EVIDENT THAT IT WAS CONTEMPLATED THAT THE TRAVEL IN REPORTING TO WASHINGTON, D.C., WAS INCIDENT TO A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION EFFECTIVE MARCH 7, 1967, SINCE THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT YOU WERE EXPECTED TO RETURN TO LOS ANGELES FOR FURTHER DUTIES. WHILE IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT YOUR ORIGINAL TRAVEL ORDER CONTAINED A REFERECNE TO TEMPORARY DUTY, NEVERTHELESS, SUCH REFERENCE MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS OVERCOMING OTHER PARTS OF THE TRAVEL ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE PREVIOUS ACTION OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IN YOUR CASE MUST BE SUSTAINED.

CONCERNING YOUR REQUEST THAT YOU BE REINSTATED IN THE POSITION THAT YOU WERE REMOVED FROM PRIOR TO YOUR TRANSFER, THIS WOULD BE A MATTER FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND NOT OUR OFFICE.