B-168139, OCT. 31, 1969

B-168139, OCT. 31, 1969

MILEAGE--TRAVEL BY PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE--BETWEEN RESIDENCE AND HEADQUARTERS EMPLOYEE WHO REFUSED TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT TO REMAIN WITH GOVERNMENT FOR 12 MONTHS FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE DATE OF TRANSFER FROM NAVAL SECURITY STATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. TO FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MD. AS REQUIRED BY 5 U.S.C. 5724 (I) IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXPENSES AND ALLOWANCES IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSFER. ALSO SINCE NOTHING IN PAPERS PRESENTED WITH CLAIM INDICATED CHANGE OF RESIDENCE AT TIME TRANSFER OF OFFICIAL STATION WAS EFFECTIVE, VOUCHER PRESENTED FOR MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT FOR 26 MILES BY PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE WAS ASSUMED TO BE TRAVEL BETWEEN RESIDENCE AND NEW PLACE OF DUTY FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT IS NOT AUTHORIZED, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NOT BEING ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL BETWEEN RESIDENCE AND PLACE OF DUTY.

TO MR. GILBERT H. DAWSON:

WE REFER TO YOUR MEMORANDUM TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (ADMINISTRATION), DATED JULY 28, 1969, YOUR REFERENCE SERIAL: D5/1328F, WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO US BY THE PER DIEM, TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE COMMITTEE ON OCTOBER 14, 1969, UNDER PDTATAC CONTROL NO. 69 32.

YOU REQUEST OUR DECISION WHETHER YOU MAY PAY THE CLAIM OF MR. PHILIP W. IDE FOR MILEAGE AND PER DIEM INCIDENT TO HIS CHANGE OF OFFICIAL STATION FROM THE NAVAL SECURITY STATION, WASHINGTON, D.C., TO FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND, WHICH WAS EFFECTIVE MAY 20, 1968, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT HE REFUSED TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT TO REMAIN WITH THE GOVERNMENT FOR 12 MONTHS FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF HIS TRANSFER AS REQUIRED BY 5 U.S.C. 5724 (I) UNTIL MAY 1969 WHEN THE 12 MONTHS HAD EXPIRED.

THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THE PAPERS PRESENTED WITH THE CLAIM THAT MR. IDE CHANGED HIS RESIDENCE AT THE TIME THE TRANSFER OF OFFICIAL STATION WAS EFFECTIVE. IN THE VOUCHER PRESENTED HE CLAIMS MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL BY PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE OF 26 MILES ON THE BASIS OF SPEEDOMETER READINGS FURNISHED. HE INDICATES THAT TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED FROM 6:30 A.M. TO 7:30 A.M. ON MAY 20, BUT DOES NOT SHOW THE PLACES BETWEEN WHICH TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED. ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION NOW BEFORE US WE CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT MR. IDE TRAVELED BETWEEN HIS RESIDENCE AND HIS PLACE OF WORK AT THE NAVAL SECURITY STATION ON HIS LAST WORKDAY PRECEDING MAY 20 AND THAT HE TRAVELED BETWEEN HIS RESIDENCE AND HIS PLACE OF WORK AT FORT GEORGE G. MEADE ON MAY 20.

IF OUR ASSUMPTION IN THAT REGARD IS CORRECT, MR. IDE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE REIMBURSEMENT CLAIMED BECAUSE HE PERFORMED NO TRAVEL AS A RESULT OF THE CHANGE OF HIS OFFICIAL STATION. THE TRAVEL HE PERFORMED ON HIS LAST DAY OF WORK AT THE NAVAL SECURITY STATION AND ON HIS FIRST DAY OF WORK AT FORT GEORGE G. MEADE DOES NOT ENTITLE HIM TO PAYMENT OF MILEAGE OR PER DIEM BECAUSE A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL BETWEEN HIS RESIDENCE AND HIS PLACE OF DUTY AT HIS OFFICIAL STATION. 16 COMP. GEN. 64 (1936); 27 ID. 1 (1947).

REGARDING YOUR GENERAL QUESTIONS WE NOTE THAT THE SIGNING OF A 12 MONTH SERVICE AGREEMENT BY THE EMPLOYEE IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE PAYMENT OF ANY OF THE EXPENSES AND ALLOWANCES OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED IN CONNECTION WITH HIS TRANSFER. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN THE LAW OR APPLICABLE REGULATIONS THAT SUCH AN AGREEMENT BE SIGNED PRIOR TO PERFORMANCE OF TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION INCIDENT TO A CHANGE OF OFFICIAL STATION EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED IN THE CASE OF TRAVEL FOR A HOUSE HUNTING TRIP UNDER SECTION 2.4C (3) OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A -56, AS AMENDED, JUNE 26, 1969. ANY PAYMENT MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR EXPENSES AND ALLOWANCES AUTHORIZED IN CONNECTION WITH A TRANSFER, WHETHER MADE DIRECTLY TO THE EMPLOYEE OR BY ISSUANCE OF GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS OR GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING IS IMPROPER UNLESS THE REQUIRED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN SIGNED. ALTHOUGH NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED BY LAW OR REGULATION WE BELIEVE THAT TRAVEL ADVANCES FOR TRANSFER EXPENSES AS AUTHORIZED IN CIRCULAR NO. A-56 SHOULD BE MADE ONLY AFTER THE AGREEMENT REQUIRED FOR ENTITLEMENT TO PAYMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED HAS BEEN SIGNED.

IN VIEW OF THE CONCLUSION REACHED ABOVE TO THE EFFECT THAT MR. IDE IS NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED UNDER THE FACTS GIVEN, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO ANSWER YOUR GENERAL QUESTIONS EXCEPT AS ANSWERS MAY BE CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE DISCUSSION OF THE BASIC AUTHORITIES INVOLVED. ANY VOUCHER PRESENTED TO YOU FOR DISBURSEMENT INVOLVING AN EMPLOYEE WHO HAS REFUSED TO SIGN THE REQUIRED AGREEMENT UNTIL AFTER THE 12 MONTH PERIOD OF SERVICE AT HIS NEW OFFICIAL STATION HAS EXPIRED SHOULD BE SUBMITTED FOR OUR CONSIDERATION.