B-169727, JUL. 10, 1970

B-169727: Jul 10, 1970

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

EMPLOYEE WHOSE WIFE DIED WHILE HE WAS IN PROCESS OF MAKING ARRANGEMENTS TO TRANSFER TO A NEW STATION. WHOSE REMAINS WERE TRANSPORTED TO ARLINGTON. SINCE THERE IS NO LAW OR REGULATION WHICH AUTHORIZES EXPENSES RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION OF DECEASED DEPENDENT EXCEPT IN CASE OF EMPLOYEE PERFORMING DUTY OUTSIDE CONTINENTAL U.S. BAINBRIDGE WAS TRANSFERRED TO WASHINGTON. HE WAS ADVISED THAT SHE WOULD BE UNABLE TO ACCOMPANY HIM. WAS TRANSPORTED TO ARLINGTON. PERTAINING TO TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED TOGETHER WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACT OF JULY 8. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN QUESTION THE EMPLOYEE'S CLAIM OF $60 FOR HEARSE SERVICE IS PROPERLY FOR DISALLOWANCE BY YOUR OFFICE.

B-169727, JUL. 10, 1970

CIVIL PAY -- TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEE -- REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF REMAINS OF DECEASED WIFE DECISION TO CERTIFYING OFFICER, DEPT. OF INTERIOR, DISALLOWING CLAIM OF AN EMPLOYEE FOR TRANSPORTATION OF HIS WIFE'S REMAINS FROM RICHMOND, VA., TO ARLINGTON, VA., SUBSEQUENT TO CHANGE OF STATION FROM RICHMOND TO WASHINGTON, D.C. EMPLOYEE WHOSE WIFE DIED WHILE HE WAS IN PROCESS OF MAKING ARRANGEMENTS TO TRANSFER TO A NEW STATION, AND WHOSE REMAINS WERE TRANSPORTED TO ARLINGTON, VA., FOR BURIAL MAY NOT BE REIMBURSED FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED, SINCE THERE IS NO LAW OR REGULATION WHICH AUTHORIZES EXPENSES RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION OF DECEASED DEPENDENT EXCEPT IN CASE OF EMPLOYEE PERFORMING DUTY OUTSIDE CONTINENTAL U.S.

TO MR. FLOYD P HOUGH:

ON APRIL 4, 1970, YOU REQUESTED OUR DECISION CONCERNING MR. JAMES L. BAINBRIDGE'S CLAIM OF $60 FOR THE COST OF TRANSPORTING HIS WIFE'S REMAINS FROM RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, TO ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, SUBSEQUENT TO THE CHANGE OF HIS OFFICIAL STATION FROM RICHMOND TO WASHINGTON, D. C.

MR. BAINBRIDGE WAS TRANSFERRED TO WASHINGTON, D. C., IN ACCORDANCE WITH NOTIFICATION OF PERSONNEL ACTION, DATED DECEMBER 12, 1969. HE SOLD HIS HOUSE IN THE EARLY PART OF 1970 AND MOVED INTO A MOTEL ON JANUARY 24, 1970. HIS WIFE HAD BEEN ADMITTED TO THE HOSPITAL ON JANUARY 23, 1970, AND ACCORDING TO THE INITIAL DOCTOR'S REPORT, IT APPEARED SHE WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCOMPANY HIM TO WASHINGTON, D.C. HOWEVER, ON JANUARY 26, THE DAY HE ACTUALLY MOVED, HE WAS ADVISED THAT SHE WOULD BE UNABLE TO ACCOMPANY HIM. SHE DIED ON JANUARY 28, 1970, AND WAS TRANSPORTED TO ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, ON JANUARY 29 BY THE JOSEPH W. BLILEY FUNERAL HOME AT A COST OF $60.

THE PROVISIONS OF PUBLIC LAW 89-516, 80 STAT. 323, 5 U.S.C. 5724, 5724A, PERTAINING TO TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED TOGETHER WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACT OF JULY 8, 1940, AS AMENDED JULY 15, 1954, 5 U.S.C. 5742. WE FIND NO BASIS IN THOSE PROVISIONS NOR IN THE REGULATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT THERETO UPON WHICH PAYMENT OR REIMBURSEMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT BE AUTHORIZED FOR EXPENSES RELATED TO TRANSPORTING A DECEASED DEPENDENT, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF AN EMPLOYEE PERFORMING OFFICIAL DUTIES OUTSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES OR IN ALASKA.

THEREFORE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN QUESTION THE EMPLOYEE'S CLAIM OF $60 FOR HEARSE SERVICE IS PROPERLY FOR DISALLOWANCE BY YOUR OFFICE.

THE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED WITH YOUR LETTER ARE RETURNED HEREWITH.