B-170258, SEP. 22, 1970

B-170258: Sep 22, 1970

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

EMPLOYEE - TRAVEL TO RECOVER AUTOMOBILE THAT HAD BEEN MISSHIPPED EMPLOYEE WHO WAS REQUIRED TO TRAVEL TO RECOVER AUTOMOBILE THAT HAD BEEN TRANSPORTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE FROM EMPLOYEE'S OVERSEAS STATION TO U.S. F. JOHNSON: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 28. THE REQUEST WAS ASSIGNED CONTROL NO. 70-30 BY THE PER DIEM. SHERWOOD WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THAILAND TO LOS ANGELES. CUSTOMS DECLARATION AND ENTRY AND INSPECTING OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE (DD FORM 1252) WHICH HE EXECUTED SHOWS THAT SHIPMENT WAS TO BE MADE TO LONG BEACH. THIS IS ALSO SHOWN ON PRIVATE VEHICLE SHIPPING DOCUMENT (DD FORM 788). THROUGH ERROR OF GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL AT SATTAHIP THE VEHICLE WAS ERRONEOUSLY MANIFESTED FOR OAKLAND AND ACCORDINGLY WAS OFF LOADED AT THAT PORT.

B-170258, SEP. 22, 1970

EMPLOYEE - TRAVEL TO RECOVER AUTOMOBILE THAT HAD BEEN MISSHIPPED EMPLOYEE WHO WAS REQUIRED TO TRAVEL TO RECOVER AUTOMOBILE THAT HAD BEEN TRANSPORTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE FROM EMPLOYEE'S OVERSEAS STATION TO U.S. AND DELIVERED TO THE WRONG U.S. PORT MAY BE REIMBURSED FOR REASONABLE EXPENSES.

TO MAJOR C. F. JOHNSON:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 28, 1970, DCRL FOAA, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING A DECISION AS TO THE ENTITLEMENT OF MR. DONALD G. SHERWOOD TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH RECOVERY OF HIS PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLE SHIPPED FROM SATTAHIP, THAILAND, TO OAKLAND, INSTEAD OF LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA. THE REQUEST WAS ASSIGNED CONTROL NO. 70-30 BY THE PER DIEM, TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE COMMITTEE.

BY ORDERS DATED FEBRUARY 5, 1969, MR. SHERWOOD WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THAILAND TO LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, AS A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION. MARCH 11, 1969, HE RELEASED HIS PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLE TO A GOVERNMENT AGENT AT SATTAHIP, THAILAND, FOR SHIPMENT TO LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA (NEAR INGLEWOOD, CALIFORNIA) AS AUTHORIZED IN HIS ORDERS. THE OWNER'S U.S. CUSTOMS DECLARATION AND ENTRY AND INSPECTING OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE (DD FORM 1252) WHICH HE EXECUTED SHOWS THAT SHIPMENT WAS TO BE MADE TO LONG BEACH. THIS IS ALSO SHOWN ON PRIVATE VEHICLE SHIPPING DOCUMENT (DD FORM 788). THROUGH ERROR OF GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL AT SATTAHIP THE VEHICLE WAS ERRONEOUSLY MANIFESTED FOR OAKLAND AND ACCORDINGLY WAS OFF LOADED AT THAT PORT. WHEN MR. SHERWOOD WAS INFORMED THAT HIS AUTOMOBILE WAS AT OAKLAND AND WOULD NOT BE SHIPPED TO LONG BEACH HE TRAVELED TO OAKLAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING IT. HIS CLAIM COVERS THE EXPENSE OF ROUND-TRIP TRAVEL ON MAY 10, 1969.

YOUR DOUBT IN THE MATTER ARISES FROM THE FACT THAT THE TRAVEL WAS NOT PERFORMED PURSUANT TO OFFICIAL ORDERS. YOU POINT OUT, HOWEVER, THAT THE TRAVEL WAS REQUIRED THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE EMPLOYEE, AND THIS IS THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM.

PARAGRAPH C 1050, VOLUME 2, JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, PROVIDES THAT TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE WILL BE DIRECTED ONLY WHEN OFFICIALLY JUSTIFIED. PARAGRAPH C 2050 OF THE SAME REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT A TRAVEL ORDER ESTABLISHES THE CONDITIONS IN WHICH OFFICIAL TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION IS AUTHORIZED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE. NO TRAVEL ORDERS WERE ISSUED IN THE PRESENT CASE.

PARAGRAPH C 7154-2, VOLUME 2, JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, PROVIDES THAT THE AUTHORIZATION FOR TRANSPORTATION OF A PRIVATELY OWNED MOTOR VEHICLE AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE WILL BE LIMITED TO OVER WATER MOVEMENT FROM AN APPROPRIATE PORT IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES TO AN APPROPRIATE PORT SERVING THE OVERSEAS PERMANENT DUTY STATION AND RETURN. SUBPARAGRAPH 3 PROVIDES THAT NO TRANSPORTATION CHARGES WILL BE ALLOWED FOR SHIPMENT TO OR FROM APPROPRIATE PORTS AND ALSO SPECIFICALLY PRECLUDES ANY EXPENSES INCURRED BECAUSE OF A SEPARATE TRIP TO THE PORT TO PICK UP THE MOTOR VEHICLE.

IN THE PRESENT CASE, MR. SHERWOOD APPLIED FOR SHIPMENT OF HIS AUTOMOBILE TO LONG BEACH AND AT THE TIME OF SHIPMENT WAS LED TO BELIEVE THE VEHICLE WOULD BE OFF LOADED AT THAT PORT. SINCE THE GOVERNMENT ERRED IN DISCHARGING IT AT OAKLAND AND REFUSED TO COMPLETE THE SHIPMENT TO LONG BEACH, THE TRAVEL OF THE EMPLOYEE TO CLAIM HIS VEHICLE WAS NECESSARY THROUGH NO FAULT OF HIS OWN. ALTHOUGH HE WAS NOT TRAVELING UNDER ORDERS, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES REASONABLE EXPENSES INCURRED BY HIM IN RETRIEVING HIS CAR MAY BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE GOVERNMENT'S COST OF TRANSPORTING IT TO THE APPROPRIATE PORT OF DEBARKATION, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA.

ACCORDINGLY, PAYMENT IS AUTHORIZED ON THE VOUCHER WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH.