B-165802, JUL. 14, 1969

B-165802: Jul 14, 1969

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

A-56 AUTHORIZES REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES INCURRED BY AN EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY AT THE OLD OFFICIAL DUTY STATION FOR LODGING OBTAINED TEMPORARILY AFTER THEY HAVE VACATED THE RESIDENCE QUARTERS IN WHICH THEY WERE RESIDING AT THE TIME OF THE EMPLOYEE'S TRANSFER. SINCE THE RECORD SHOWED THAT YOUR WIFE AND CHILDREN OCCUPIED THE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN PUYALLUP DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION YOUR CLAIM FOR SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES WAS DENIED. YOU SUGGEST THAT THE DECISION IN YOUR CASE IS INCONSISTENT WITH STATEMENTS APPEARING IN OUR LETTER OF JULY 1. A COPY OF WHICH WAS ENCLOSED WITH YOUR LETTER OF MAY 6. ON PAGE 2 OF THE JULY 1 LETTER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION IS QUOTED: "2. WHILE THAT QUESTION WAS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

B-165802, JUL. 14, 1969

CIVIL PAY - DEPENDENTS OCCUPYING TEMPORARY QUARTERS DECISION REAFFIRMING HOLDING IN B-165802, MARCH 24, 1969, DENYING SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF OCCUPANCY OF TEMPORARY QUARTERS BY DEPENDENTS OF TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEE WHEN IN FACT DEPENDENTS OCCUPIED HOME AT OLD STATION DURING PERIOD OF CLAIM. B-164375, JULY 1, 1968, DISTINGUISHED.

TO MR. MERLINE R. BARKER:

WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 6, 1969, WITH ENCLOSURE, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF THAT PORTION OF OUR DECISION OF MARCH 24, 1969, B 165802, WHICH SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES OF YOUR DEPENDENTS WHILE OCCUPYING "TEMPORARY" QUARTERS FROM JANUARY 27 TO MARCH 27, 1967, INCIDENT TO YOUR TRANSFER FROM PUYALLUP, WASHINGTON, TO MOLOKAI, HAWAII.

IN THE DECISION OF MARCH 24, 1969, WE POINTED OUT THAT SECTION 2.5B (3) OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56 AUTHORIZES REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES INCURRED BY AN EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY AT THE OLD OFFICIAL DUTY STATION FOR LODGING OBTAINED TEMPORARILY AFTER THEY HAVE VACATED THE RESIDENCE QUARTERS IN WHICH THEY WERE RESIDING AT THE TIME OF THE EMPLOYEE'S TRANSFER. SINCE THE RECORD SHOWED THAT YOUR WIFE AND CHILDREN OCCUPIED THE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN PUYALLUP DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION YOUR CLAIM FOR SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES WAS DENIED.

YOU SUGGEST THAT THE DECISION IN YOUR CASE IS INCONSISTENT WITH STATEMENTS APPEARING IN OUR LETTER OF JULY 1, 1968, B-164375, ADDRESSED TO A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, A COPY OF WHICH WAS ENCLOSED WITH YOUR LETTER OF MAY 6. ON PAGE 2 OF THE JULY 1 LETTER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION IS QUOTED:

"2. WOULD THE EMPLOYEE BE ENTITLED TO TEMPORARY SUBSISTENCE CLAIMS FOR HIS FAMILY WHO OCCUPIED SEPARATE QUARTERS AT THEIR MAINLAND HOME DURING THE SAME PERIOD AS THE EMPLOYEE IN ITEM 1.'

WHILE THAT QUESTION WAS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, IT WAS ASSUMED THAT THE TERM "SEPARATE QUARTERS" APPEARING IN SUCH QUESTION REFERRED TO QUARTERS OTHER THAN THE OLD RESIDENCE QUARTERS. ALSO, SUCH ANSWER WAS QUALIFIED BY OUR STATEMENT ON PAGE 3 OF OUR LETTER AS FOLLOWS:

"AN EMPLOYEE MAY BE REIMBURSED SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES INCURRED BY HIS FAMILY AT THE OLD OFFICIAL STATION AFTER THEY HAVE VACATED PERMANENT QUARTERS AND AT THE NEW OFFICIAL STATION BEFORE THEY HAVE OBTAINED NEW PERMANENT QUARTERS BUT ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PERIODS INVOLVED DO NOT EXCEED THE TIME LIMITS IMPOSED BY THE AGENCY, THE CONTROLLING REGULATION, OR THE LAW.'

UNDER THE CONTROLLING REGULATIONS IT IS CLEAR THAT REIMBURSEMENT MAY NOT BE ALLOWED FOR SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES INCURRED BY AN EMPLOYEE AND/OR MEMBERS OF HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY WHILE OCCUPYING PERMANENT RESIDENCE QUARTERS.