B-168663, JAN. 21, 1970

B-168663: Jan 21, 1970

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

MUST HAVE THE 1-YEAR PERIOD FOR SETTLEMENT REGARDED AS EXPIRED AND THEREFORE FACT THAT UNDER 4.1E OF THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. 1-YEAR TIME LIMIT WAS CHANGED TO 2 YEARS WOULD NOT HAVE ANY RETROACTIVE EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT PERIODS THAT HAD EXPIRED. SALE OF HIS OLD RESIDENCE WAS CLOSED MAY 5. PURCHASE OF HIS NEW RESIDENCE WAS CLOSED JUNE 16. HOEHN BELIEVES HIS CLAIM IS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 4.1E OF THAT AMENDMENT (FORMERLY SECTION 4.1D). WE HELD THAT SECTION 4.1E IS NOT RETROACTIVE AND IS APPLICABLE ONLY WHERE THE INITIAL 1-YEAR PERIOD HAS NOT EXPIRED PRIOR TO ITS EFFECTIVE DATE. IT WAS INAPPLICABLE. HOEHN'S CLAIM IS GOVERNED BY THE OLD SECTION 4.1D. THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THE REQUIREMENT OF SETTLEMENT WITHIN A 1-YEAR PERIOD ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 4.1D WAS A DELAY BECAUSE OF LITIGATION.

B-168663, JAN. 21, 1970

CIVIL PAY--TRANSFERS--REAL ESTATE EXPENSES--TIME LIMITATION DECISION TO CERTIFYING OFFICER OF CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD HOLDING THAT VOUCHER FOR REAL ESTATE EXPENSES FOR TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEE MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT. EMPLOYEE WHO, AFTER REPORTING TO NEW STATION AUGUST 13, 1967, CLOSED SALE OF OLD RESIDENCE MAY 5, 1968 AND PURCHASED NEW HOME JUNE 16, 1969, MUST HAVE THE 1-YEAR PERIOD FOR SETTLEMENT REGARDED AS EXPIRED AND THEREFORE FACT THAT UNDER 4.1E OF THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56 AS REVISED JUNE 26, 1969, 1-YEAR TIME LIMIT WAS CHANGED TO 2 YEARS WOULD NOT HAVE ANY RETROACTIVE EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT PERIODS THAT HAD EXPIRED.

TO MR. RAYMOND KURLANDER:

YOUR LETTER DATED DECEMBER 16, 1969, REFERENCE B-18, REQUESTS A DECISION AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF CERTIFYING FOR PAYMENT KENNETH W. HOEHN'S TRAVEL VOUCHER COVERING REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF HIS RESIDENCES AT HIS OLD AND NEW DUTY STATIONS, RESPECTIVELY, IN CONNECTION WITH HIS TRANSFER FROM THE DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY, NEW YORK, TO THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD (CAB), WASHINGTON, D. C.

MR. HOEHN REPORTED FOR DUTY WITH CAB AUGUST 13, 1967. SALE OF HIS OLD RESIDENCE WAS CLOSED MAY 5, 1969; AND PURCHASE OF HIS NEW RESIDENCE WAS CLOSED JUNE 16, 1969. HE SAYS THAT HE DID NOT ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF HIS OLD RESIDENCE OR A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF HIS NEW RESIDENCE BEFORE AUGUST 13, 1968. HOWEVER, SINCE THE JUNE 26, 1969, AMENDMENT TO BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56 BECAME EFFECTIVE BEFORE A 2-YEAR TERM OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WITH CAB HAD EXPIRED, MR. HOEHN BELIEVES HIS CLAIM IS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 4.1E OF THAT AMENDMENT (FORMERLY SECTION 4.1D).

IN B-164461, DECEMBER 12, 1969, WE HELD THAT SECTION 4.1E IS NOT RETROACTIVE AND IS APPLICABLE ONLY WHERE THE INITIAL 1-YEAR PERIOD HAS NOT EXPIRED PRIOR TO ITS EFFECTIVE DATE. SINCE SECTION 4.1E DID NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE UNTIL SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER MR. HOEHN'S INITIAL 1-YEAR PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT WITH CAB HAD EXPIRED, IT WAS INAPPLICABLE, AND MR. HOEHN'S CLAIM IS GOVERNED BY THE OLD SECTION 4.1D. THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THE REQUIREMENT OF SETTLEMENT WITHIN A 1-YEAR PERIOD ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 4.1D WAS A DELAY BECAUSE OF LITIGATION, WHICH IS NOT INVOLVED HERE.

WE AGREE THAT SECTION 4.1E REQUIRES THAT A SALE/PURCHASE CONTRACT HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO WITHIN THE INITIAL 1-YEAR PERIOD AFTER TRANSFER BEFORE AN EXTENSION OF TIME CAN BE GRANTED FOR SETTLEMENT. SEE B 168392, DECEMBER 16, 1969. FOR THIS REASON EVEN IF SECTION 4.1E DID APPLY TO MR. HOEHN, HE DID NOT COMPLY WITH ITS PROVISIONS AND WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SETTLEMENT. HOWEVER, SECTION 4.1E IS NOT RESTRICTED IN ITS APPLICATION TO ONLY THOSE EMPLOYEES REPORTING TO A NEW OFFICIAL STATION ON OR AFTER JUNE 26, 1969, ITS EFFECTIVE DATE. WHERE THE DATE OF TRANSFER PRECEDES JUNE 26, BUT THE EXPENSE INCURRED IS SUBSEQUENT TO THAT DATE, THE DATE OF THE EXPENSE IS CONTROLLING, AND IF IT OTHERWISE FALLS WITHIN SECTION 4.1E, IT MAY BE REIMBURSED. SEE B-168156, DECEMBER 11, 1969, COPY ENCLOSED.

ACCORDINGLY, THE VOUCHER WHICH IS RETURNED, TOGETHER WITH SUPPORTING PAPERS, MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.