B-170060, AUG. 5, 1970

B-170060: Aug 5, 1970

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

MAY HAVE TRANSFER REGARDED AS IN INTEREST OF GOVERNMENT. MALSBURY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 5. YOUR LETTER WAS CONSIDERED PRIMARILY AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT AND THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 29. WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY RESTRICTION AS TO CURRENT APPROVAL OF THE TRAVEL IN QUESTION BECAUSE THE TRANSFER OCCURRED IN AUGUST 1966. THE EVIDENCE OF RECORD WOULD SEEM TO SUPPORT A DETERMINATION THAT THE EMPLOYEE WAS TRANSFERRED IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES AND NOT FOR HIS OWN CONVENIENCE AND THAT IT WAS UNDERSTOOD THAT SUCH TRANSFER WOULD BE AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE.

B-170060, AUG. 5, 1970

TRANSFERS -- EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT DECISION TO FINANCE OFFICER, AIR FORCE, CONCERNING AUTHORITY TO RETROACTIVELY APPROVE TRAVEL TO NEW PERMANENT STATION. EMPLOYEE, WHO OBTAINED A NEW JOB ON HIS OWN AND TRANSFERRED AT HIS EXPENSE TO THE NEW STATION AFTER HE HAD EXECUTED THE PROPER FORMS TO TRAVEL AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE AT THE OLD STATION, BUT HAD TO LEAVE BEFORE THEY COULD BE AUTHORIZED BECAUSE OF THE DEADLINE DATE TO REPORT AT THE NEW STATION, MAY HAVE TRANSFER REGARDED AS IN INTEREST OF GOVERNMENT, IF APPROVED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER, AND HE MAY BE REIMBURSED PROPER EXPENSES.

TO LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROBERT E. MALSBURY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 5, 1970, DCRB-FO, CONCERNING THE CLAIM OF ALEXANDER F. NAHAS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH HIS TRANSFER IN AUGUST 1966 FROM GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, TO BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT.

YOUR LETTER REFERRED TO THE REQUEST OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT BUT ALSO ASKED FOR AN ADVANCE DECISION. YOU PRESENTED THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OF DOUBT:

"A. CAN AUTHORIZATION FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED 2 YEARS PRIOR TO RECEIPT OF ORDERS BE APPROVED?

"B. CAN THE DISBURSING OFFICER, DCASR-BOSTON, APPROVE FOR PAYMENT A VOUCHER IN WHICH ADMINISTRATIVE INTENT TO PAY THE EMPLOYEE HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED?

"C. CAN TRAVEL ORDERS BE ISSUED TWO YEARS AFTER TRAVEL WITHOUT STATEMENTS AS TO ORIGINAL AUTHORIZATION FOR THE TRAVEL (I.E., ORAL, LETTER, ETC.) AND JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY UNUSUAL DELAY IN ISSUANCE?"

YOUR LETTER WAS CONSIDERED PRIMARILY AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT AND THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 29, 1970, ON THE BASIS THAT THE TRAVEL OF THE EMPLOYEE HAD NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED BY THE PROPER AUTHORITY.

THE EMPLOYEE HAS ASKED FOR REVIEW OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF HIS CLAIM. BELIEVE THAT ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME MAY FACILITATE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER.

AS TO QUESTION "A.", WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY RESTRICTION AS TO CURRENT APPROVAL OF THE TRAVEL IN QUESTION BECAUSE THE TRANSFER OCCURRED IN AUGUST 1966.

REGARDING QUESTION "B.", THE DISBURSING OFFICER WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO APPROVE A VOUCHER FOR PAYMENT OF TRANSFER EXPENSES UNLESS THE TRAVEL AND OTHER EXPENSES CONNECTED WITH SUCH TRANSFER HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED BY AN OFFICIAL HAVING AUTHORITY TO DO SO.

AS TO QUESTION "C.", THE EVIDENCE OF RECORD WOULD SEEM TO SUPPORT A DETERMINATION THAT THE EMPLOYEE WAS TRANSFERRED IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES AND NOT FOR HIS OWN CONVENIENCE AND THAT IT WAS UNDERSTOOD THAT SUCH TRANSFER WOULD BE AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE. SEE SECTIONS C 2051 AND C 4100 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE SUGGEST THAT THE MATTER BE SUBMITTED TO AN OFFICIAL HAVING AUTHORITY TO APPROVE TRAVEL AND OTHER EXPENSES CONNECTED WITH SIMILAR TRANSFERS, FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL. IF SUCH APPROVAL BE GRANTED, WE WOULD NOT OBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF THE CLAIM.