B-166394, APR. 17, 1969

B-166394: Apr 17, 1969

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

THAT PORTION OF HIS CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCES WHICH WERE NOT AVAILABLE UNTIL ENACTMENT OF THE ACT OF JULY 21. WAS DENIED BECAUSE HE REPORTED TO HIS NEW DUTY STATION PRIOR TO JULY 21. IT IS YOUR CONTENTION THAT SINCE THE EXPENSES REFERRED TO ABOVE WERE INCURRED BY THE EMPLOYEE AFTER JULY 21. HE IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT UNDER THE STATUTE ALTHOUGH THE DATE OF HIS TRANSFER WAS PRIOR TO JULY 21. THE ALLOWANCES AUTHORIZED BY PUBLIC LAW 89-516 WERE MADE SUBJECT TO REGULATIONS TO BE ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 11290. WE REJECT THE SUGGESTION THAT THE REGULATION ISSUED BY THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET IS NOT IN HARMONY WITH THE STATUTE OR SERVES TO NULLIFY A RIGHT GRANTED BY THE STATUTE.

B-166394, APR. 17, 1969

TO WILLIAM J. FITZGERALD, ESQUIRE:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 20, 1969, ON BEHALF OF YOUR CLIENT, MR. JOHN T. KENNELLY, WHO CLAIMS ADDITIONAL REIMBURSEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,579.25 FOR RELOCATION EXPENSES INCURRED INCIDENT TO HIS TRANSFER OF OFFICIAL DUTY STATION FROM SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, TO WASHINGTON, D.C., EFFECTIVE JULY 17, 1966.

ON JUNE 27, 1968, THIS OFFICE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT TO MR. KENNELLY AN AMOUNT OF $1,811.85 AS REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD ($411.85) AND SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS INCIDENT TO THE TRANSFER.

THAT PORTION OF HIS CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCES WHICH WERE NOT AVAILABLE UNTIL ENACTMENT OF THE ACT OF JULY 21, 1966, PUBLIC LAW 89 516, NOW 5 U.S.C. 5724A, WAS DENIED BECAUSE HE REPORTED TO HIS NEW DUTY STATION PRIOR TO JULY 21, 1966. SUCH ALLOWANCES INCLUDE SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES OF DEPENDENTS WHILE OCCUPYING TEMPORARY QUARTERS, EXPENSE OF REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS, MISCELLANEOUS MOVING EXPENSES, PER DIEM FOR MEMBERS OF THE EMPLOYEE'S IMMEDIATE FAMILY WHILE EN ROUTE TO WASHINGTON, D.C., AND TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS IN EXCESS OF 7,000 POUNDS.

IT IS YOUR CONTENTION THAT SINCE THE EXPENSES REFERRED TO ABOVE WERE INCURRED BY THE EMPLOYEE AFTER JULY 21, 1966, THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF PUBLIC LAW 89-516, HE IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT UNDER THE STATUTE ALTHOUGH THE DATE OF HIS TRANSFER WAS PRIOR TO JULY 21, THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF PUBLIC LAW 89-516.

THE ALLOWANCES AUTHORIZED BY PUBLIC LAW 89-516 WERE MADE SUBJECT TO REGULATIONS TO BE ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 11290, JULY 21, 1966, DELEGATED THIS AUTHORITY TO THE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET. AS POINTED OUT IN YOUR LETTER, THE DIRECTOR, IN HIS LETTER OF OCTOBER 12, 1966, TRANSMITTING THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING PAYMENT OF TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES OF CIVILIAN OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES ESTABLISHED, AMONG CONDITIONS FOR ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFITS OF THE ACT, THAT: (1) THE EMPLOYEE OR NEW APPOINTEE MUST REPORT FOR DUTY AT HIS NEW OFFICIAL STATION ON OR AFTER JULY 21, 1966 AND (2) EXPENSES REIMBURSABLE UNDER THE STATUTE AND IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS MUST BE INCURRED AFTER JULY 21, 1966.

THIS OFFICE HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT THE TWO CONDITIONS SPECIFIED MUST BE MET BEFORE AN EMPLOYEE MAY OBTAIN ALLOWANCES UNDER THE ACT. 46 COMP. GEN. 595; B-161050, MAY 8, 1967; B-161699, JUNE 27, 1967, COPIES ENCLOSED.

WE FIND NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE TO REQUIRE PAYMENT OF REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES INCURRED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE DATE ON WHICH AN EMPLOYEE TRANSFERRED TO A NEW DUTY STATION. SECTION 3 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT "REGULATIONS UNDER THIS ACT SHALL BE PRESCRIBED WITHIN NINETY DAYS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF ENACTMENT BUT SHALL BE RETROACTIVE TO SUCH DATE," THEREBY STATING THE INTENT THAT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WOULD NOT BE RETROACTIVE TO AN EARLIER DATE. THUS, WE REJECT THE SUGGESTION THAT THE REGULATION ISSUED BY THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET IS NOT IN HARMONY WITH THE STATUTE OR SERVES TO NULLIFY A RIGHT GRANTED BY THE STATUTE, AS HELD IN THE CASES YOU HAVE CITED.

IN VIEW OF OUR PRIOR DECISIONS ON THIS QUESTION WE FIND NOTHING IN MR. KENNELLY'S CASE TO LEAD TO A CONCLUSION THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO ANY ADDITIONAL REIMBURSEMENT BY REASON OF HIS TRANSFER OF OFFICIAL STATION.