B-165721, OCT. 23, 1969

B-165721: Oct 23, 1969

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

IS SUSTAINED SINCE FAA EMPLOYEE. ASSIGNED OVERSEAS DUTY WITH AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (AID) WAS SUBJECT TO AID TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATIONS RESTRICTING USE OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION. TRAVELING FOR PURPOSE OF SEPARATION (AID APPARENTLY CONSIDERING TRAVEL WAS FOR SEPARATION SINCE EMPLOYEE WAS NOT RETURNING TO AID POSITION) IS REQUIRED TO TRAVEL BY AIR. REGULATION DOES NOT PRECLUDE USE OF AIR TRAVEL BOTH WAYS AND RESTRICTION TO AIR TRAVEL WAS PROPER. STALEY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 20. AFTER A LENGTHY EXCHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE THE ORDER WAS AMENDED ON JUNE 5. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE STATED YOU WERE NOT AUTHORIZED TO TRAVEL BY SHIP AND ON THE BASIS OF A CONSTRUCTIVE SCHEDULE OF TRAVEL BY AIRPLANE CHARGED YOU WITH EXCESS COSTS OF $1.

B-165721, OCT. 23, 1969

TRAVEL EXPENSES--OVERSEAS EMPLOYEES--TRANSFERS--BETWEEN DUTY STATIONS OVERSEAS DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AIR AND SURFACE TRANSPORTATION FROM JAPAN TO HONOLULU, UTILIZED BY FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENTS INCIDENT TO HOME LEAVE AND TRANSFER FROM SEOUL TO MANILA UNDER TRAVEL ORDERS AUTHORIZING AIR TRAVEL TO HONOLULU, IS SUSTAINED SINCE FAA EMPLOYEE, ASSIGNED OVERSEAS DUTY WITH AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (AID) WAS SUBJECT TO AID TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATIONS RESTRICTING USE OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION. EMPLOYEE, TRAVELING FOR PURPOSE OF SEPARATION (AID APPARENTLY CONSIDERING TRAVEL WAS FOR SEPARATION SINCE EMPLOYEE WAS NOT RETURNING TO AID POSITION) IS REQUIRED TO TRAVEL BY AIR, AT LEAST ONE WAY, BUT REGULATION DOES NOT PRECLUDE USE OF AIR TRAVEL BOTH WAYS AND RESTRICTION TO AIR TRAVEL WAS PROPER.

TO MR. CHARLES J. STALEY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 20, 1969, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF ADDITIONAL TRAVEL EXPENSES FOR YOU AND YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM SEOUL, KOREA, TO HONOLULU, HAWAII, AND TO DAYTON, OHIO, INCIDENT TO YOUR TRANSFER FROM SEOUL TO MANILA, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND HOME LEAVE UNDER TRAVEL ORDER NO. 0932/002-460, MARCH 29, 1967, AS AMENDED ON JUNE 5, 1967, ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA).

THE TRAVEL ORDER OF MARCH 29, 1967, AUTHORIZED TRAVEL BY AIRPLANE FROM SEOUL TO HONOLULU IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS OF THE AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (AID). THE ORDER ALSO STATED THAT THE PACIFIC REGION, FAA, WOULD PROVIDE HOME LEAVE AND CHANGE OF STATION TRAVEL FROM HONOLULU TO MANILA. THE PACIFIC REGION STATED IT HAD NO AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE TRAVEL TO THE UNITED STATES. AFTER A LENGTHY EXCHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE THE ORDER WAS AMENDED ON JUNE 5, 1967, TO PROVIDE THAT FAA/W WOULD AUTHORIZE TRAVEL FROM SEOUL TO THE UNITED STATES AND THAT THE PACIFIC REGION WOULD PAY THE OTHER TRAVEL COSTS. ON MAY 9, 1967, YOU AND YOUR DEPENDENTS TRAVELED BY AIRPLANE FROM SEOUL TO JAPAN WHERE YOU REMAINED UNTIL MAY 12 WHEN YOU DEPARTED FROM YOKOHAMA BY SHIP. YOU ARRIVED IN HONOLULU ON MAY 19 AND DEPARTED BY AIRPLANE FOR THE UNITED STATES ON MAY 25. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE STATED YOU WERE NOT AUTHORIZED TO TRAVEL BY SHIP AND ON THE BASIS OF A CONSTRUCTIVE SCHEDULE OF TRAVEL BY AIRPLANE CHARGED YOU WITH EXCESS COSTS OF $1,673.75. YOU CONTEND THAT YOU WERE ENTITLED TO TRAVEL BY SHIP AND RECLAIM THE AMOUNT CHARGED.

THE RECORD INDICATES THAT IN 1965 YOU WERE REASSIGNED FROM YOUR POSITION WITH THE PACIFIC REGION OF FAA TO A POSITION WITH AID IN SEOUL. CONNECTION WITH THE ASSIGNMENT YOU SIGNED A FORM FAA-2666/6 59) DATED MARCH 3, 1965. FAA AGREED TO PAY THE COST OF YOUR TRAVEL AND THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS TO SEOUL AND YOU AGREED TO REMAIN AT THAT POST FOR 1 YEAR. THE AGREEMENT ALSO PROVIDED FOR FAA TO PAY HOME LEAVE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS AT THE COMPLETION OF YOUR TOUR OF SERVICE AT SEOUL. IN A SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 8, 1966, YOU AGREED TO EXTEND YOUR TOUR TO 2 YEARS.

AT THE TIME OF THE TRAVEL INVOLVED IN THIS CASE A GENERAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN FAA AND AID DATED FEBRUARY 25, 1966, WAS IN EFFECT TO IMPLEMENT FOREIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. UNDER THIS AGREEMENT PERSONNEL OF FAA ASSIGNED FOR DUTY OVERSEAS REMAINED EMPLOYEES OF FAA, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE ADMINISTRATIVELY RESPONSIBLE TO AID, AND AID REGULATIONS GOVERNED THEIR TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES.

CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION WERE PROMULGATED BY AID ON JANUARY 20 AND JUNE 9, 1966, AND INCORPORATED INTO AID MANUAL ORDER NO. 560.2, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 7, 1966. WHEN AN EMPLOYEE TRAVELS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEPARATION HE IS REQUIRED TO TRAVEL BY AIR. AID APPARENTLY CONSIDERED YOUR TRAVEL AS BEING FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEPARATION SINCE YOU WERE NOT RETURNING TO AN AID POSITION. YOU BELIEVE THE SEPARATION PROVISION IS INAPPLICABLE IN YOUR CASE INASMUCH AS YOU WERE TRAVELING FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING HOME LEAVE IN CONNECTION WITH A TRANSFER OF STATION IN WHICH CASE THE REGULATION REQUIRES AIR AT LEAST ONE WAY. HOWEVER, THE LATTER PROVISION DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE USE OF AIR TRAVEL BOTH WAYS AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS PROPER FOR THE AGENCY TO RESTRICT YOUR TRAVEL TO AIR.

YOU STATE THAT YOUR DEPENDENTS TRAVELED BY SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN HONOLULU AND YOKOHAMA, JAPAN, IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR ORIGINAL TRANSFER ORDERS TO KOREA AND THAT YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION IN THIS CASE. AT THE TIME OF THE TRAVEL TO KOREA THERE WERE NO RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BY DEPENDENTS. HOWEVER, THE RESTRICTIONS SUBSEQUENTLY PROMULGATED BY AID COVERED NOT ONLY EMPLOYEES BUT ALSO THEIR DEPENDENTS.

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM MUST BE AND IS SUSTAINED.