B-170564, NOV. 12, 1970

B-170564, NOV. 12, 1970

ADDITIONAL PER DIEM AND EXPENSES - TRAINING COURSE DECISION CONCERNING PROPRIETY OF CERTIFYING FOR PAYMENT TRAVEL VOUCHER FOR ADDITIONAL PER DIEM AND EXPENSES INCIDENT TO ATTENDANCE AT HARVARD PROGRAM FOR MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT. CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL PER DIEM FOR PERIOD OF WEEK WHEN EMPLOYEES ATTENDING TRAINING COURSE AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE WERE MOVED FROM DORMITORIES TO HOTEL WHERE WIVES JOINED THEM FOR GRADUATION CEREMONIES MUST BE REGARDED AS WITHIN THE TRAVEL ORDERS RATHER THAN AS DUE TO CAMPUS DEMONSTRATION SINCE IT WAS CUSTOMARY FOR SUCH HOTEL OCCUPANCY UNDER THE PROGRAM AND THEREFORE ADDITIONAL PER DIEM CLAIM MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED. AS FOR ADDITIONAL PER DIEM FOR TWO DAYS WHEN HE WAS PREVENTED FROM USING DINING HALLS BECAUSE CLASS SESSIONS WERE OFF CAMPUS THIS MAY BE ALLOWED. CLAIM FOR TRANSPORTATION OF TRUNK ON CONSTRUCTIVE COST BASIS MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.

TO MISS VERNETTE A. SCHULTZ:

THIS IS IN REPLY TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 6, 1970, REFERENCE 641.1, REQUESTING A DECISION AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF CERTIFYING FOR PAYMENT A TRAVEL VOUCHER FOR $203.80 IN FAVOR OF MR. FREDERICK SEIBOLD, AN EMPLOYEE OF YOUR AGENCY.

MR. SEIBOLD WAS SELECTED TO ATTEND THE PROGRAM FOR MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY COMMENCING FEBRUARY 8, 1970. ALL PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROGRAM WERE REQUIRED TO LIVE ON CAMPUS. THE AGENCY AUTHORIZED MR. SEIBOLD TO MAKE FOUR TRIPS TO HARVARD, AND PAID HIS TUITION, ROOM AND BOARD. MR. SEIBOLD ALSO WAS AUTHORIZED PER DIEM AS FOLLOWS:

LODGING AND THREE MEALS PROVIDED - $ 4 PER DAY

LODGING AND TWO MEALS PROVIDED - $ 7 PER DAY

LODGING AND ONE MEAL PROVIDED - $10 PER DAY

MR. SEIBOLD WAS REIMBURSED FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES AND PER DIEM AT THE RATES STATED ABOVE, BUT HE WAS NOT PAID AMOUNTS CLAIMED FOR ADDITIONAL PER DIEM FOR APRIL 6-7 AND MAY 8-14, 1970, CERTAIN TAXICAB FARES FOR THE PERIOD MAY 8-14, AND THE CONSTRUCTIVE COSTS OF THE TRANSPORTATION FOR A STEAMER TRUNK TO AND FROM HARVARD. MR. SEIBOLD RECLAIMS THESE ITEMS PLUS A TAXICAB FARE OF $2.55 INCURRED ON MARCH 30, 1970, WHICH WAS OMITTED FROM HIS ORIGINAL VOUCHER. THE PROPRIETY OF THE $2.55 ITEM HAS NOT BEEN QUESTIONED AND, THEREFORE, WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED IN THIS DECISION.

MR. SEIBOLD STATES THAT THE PROGRAM WAS NOT CONDUCTED AT HARVARD ON APRIL 6-7, 1970, AND THAT HE WAS NOT FURNISHED MEALS ON THOSE DAYS. HE CLAIMS $12 ADDITIONAL PER DIEM (THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE $10 RATE AND THE $4 RATE PAID FOR THOSE DAYS). MR. SEIBOLD STATES THAT THE PERIOD MAY 8-14, 1970, WAS OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED AS GRADUATION WEEK. INDIVIDUAL AND JOINT CLASSES WITH WIVES WERE SCHEDULED. THE CAMPUS DORMITORIES WERE NOT CLOSED BUT IT WAS RECOGNIZED THAT EVERYONE WOULD MOVE TO A HOTEL AND BLOCK RESERVATIONS WERE MADE FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS. MR. SEIBOLD EXPRESSES THE OPINION THAT, CONSIDERING THE STATURE OF THE PARTICIPANTS, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE REPRESENTATIVE TO HAVE BEEN THE ONLY PERSON TO REFUSE THE HOTEL RESERVATION. HE ALSO STATES THAT THERE WAS A STUDENT ANTIWAR DEMONSTRATION IN THE VICINITY OF THE CLASSROOMS AND THE DORMITORY, CLASSES WERE CANCELED ON THE AFTERNOON OF MAY 8 AND THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY OF VIOLENCE. MR. SEIBOLD CLAIMS $151.25 ADDITIONAL PER DIEM FOR GRADUATION WEEK (THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN $25 PER DAY AND THE RATES PREVIOUSLY PAID).

LEGAL RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES UNDER A SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE VEST AS AND WHEN THE TRAVEL IS PERFORMED UNDER THE ORDERS. SUCH ORDERS MAY NOT BE REVOKED OR MODIFIED RETROACTIVELY SO AS TO INCREASE OR DECREASE THE RIGHTS WHICH HAVE BECOME FIXED UNLESS ERROR IS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE ORDERS, OR THE FACTS DEMONSTRATE THAT SOME PROVISION PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED HAS BEEN OMITTED THROUGH ERROR IN PREPARING THE ORDERS.

IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ORDERS WERE CLEAR ON THEIR FACE. WE UNDERSTAND THAT DURING THE LAST WEEK OF THE TRAINING PROGRAM IN QUESTION THE PARTICIPANTS CUSTOMARILY INVITE THEIR WIVES TO ATTEND AND ALL MOVE TO A HOTEL. WE HAVE BEEN INFORMALLY ADVISED THAT THE MOVE TO THE HOTEL WAS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GRADUATION WEEK CUSTOM, NOT THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE. THE RECORD INDICATES THAT DORMITORY AND DINING HALLS WERE CLOSED ONLY AFTER IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT NO ONE WAS USING THEM. IN VIEW THEREOF, NO ADDITIONAL PER DIEM IS ALLOWABLE DURING SUCH PERIOD (MAY 8-14, 1970).

WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL PER DIEM ON APRIL 6-7, 1970, WE ASSUME THAT MR. SEIBOLD ATE BREAKFAST AT THE UNIVERSITY SINCE HE IS CLAIMING PER DIEM FOR THESE TWO DAYS AT THE RATE OF $10 PER DAY INSTEAD OF $4 AS ORIGINALLY ALLOWED. WE UNDERSTAND THE CAMPUS DINING FACILITIES WERE OPEN ON THOSE DAYS. HOWEVER, SINCE MR. SEIBOLD SAYS CLASS SESSIONS WERE HELD OFF THE CAMPUS WE TAKE THIS TO MEAN THAT BY REASON THEREOF HE WAS PREVENTED FROM PARTAKING OF THE OTHER TWO MEALS. THEREFORE, HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED AN ADDITIONAL $12 FOR THOSE TWO DAYS.

THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE TAXICAB FARES DURING THE PERIOD MAY 8 14, 1970, WERE INCURRED IN TRAVELING FROM THE HOTEL TO HARVARD. SINCE THE MOVE TO THE HOTEL AS PREVIOUSLY INDICATED WAS NOT DUE TO OFFICIAL NECESSITY, THE FARES ARE NOT ALLOWABLE.

THE CLAIM FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE TRUNK (BASED ON CONSTRUCTIVE COST) IS MADE ON THE GROUND THAT SUMMER AND WINTER CLOTHES WERE REQUIRED FOR A PERIOD OF 14 WEEKS AND BOOKS, NOTES AND CASE STUDIES WERE ACQUIRED DURING THE TRAINING PERIOD. THE RECORD INDICATES MR. SEIBOLD WAS AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED TO AND FROM HARVARD BY AUTOMOBILE FOR HIS PERSONAL CONVENIENCE. MILEAGE WAS AUTHORIZED NOT TO EXCEED COST BY COMMON CARRIER. ALTHOUGH THE ORDERS COULD HAVE INCLUDED AN AUTHORIZATION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF EXCESS BAGGAGE (THE COST OF WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION OF CONSTRUCTIVE COST), NONE WAS AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF A CONSTRUCTIVE COST OF SHIPPING THE TRUNK. SEE B 158176, JANUARY 10, 1966. IN ADDITION TO DRIVING HIS AUTOMOBILE TO HARVARD WE NOTE THAT MR. SEIBOLD RETURNED TO HIS OFFICIAL STATION AND RESIDENCE BY AIR AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE TWICE DURING THE TRAINING PERIOD. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AN EXCESS BAGGAGE AUTHORIZATION DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN NECESSARY.

THE COPY OF THE TRAVEL VOUCHER, FORWARDED IN PLACE OF THE ORIGINAL, IS RETAINED. THE ORIGINAL IS FOR HANDLING AS INDICATED HEREIN.