B-170743, NOV. 30, 1970

B-170743: Nov 30, 1970

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

SINCE RECORD SHOWS THAT SCHEDULING OF TRAVEL WAS NOT DUE TO EMERGENCY SO THAT TRAVEL COULD BE SCHEDULED AND CONTROLLED. COMPENSATION FOR OFF DUTY HOUR TRAVEL WHEN EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ORDERS. REFERENCE IS/LOCAL 53. THE FACTS WHICH ARE SET FORTH IN OUR SETTLEMENT LETTER OF FEBRUARY 11 ARE REPEATED HERE ONLY TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY FOR REVIEW. ABOUT TWO HOURS OF DUTY WERE NECESSARY ON THE 25TH TO OBTAIN TRAVEL ORDERS. AS STATED IN OUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 11 THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF LAW ARE CONTAINED IN 5 U.S.C. 5542. YOU URGE THAT YOUR SITUATION IS COVERED BY 5542(B)(2XB)(IV) WHICH PROVIDES IN PART THAT: "TIME SPENT IN A TRAVEL STATUS AWAY FROM THE OFFICIAL DUTY STATION OF AN EMPLOYEE IS NOT HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT UNLESS- "(B) THE TRAVEL *** (IV) RESULTS FROM AN EVENT WHICH COULD NOT BE SCHEDULED OR CONTROLLED ADMINISTRATIVELY.".

B-170743, NOV. 30, 1970

TRAVEL STATUS - COMPENSATION - OFF-DUTY HOURS SUSTAINING DENIAL OF CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR TRAVEL OF NAVY EMPLOYEE DURING OFF-DUTY HOURS INCIDENT TO TEMPORARY DUTY IN SPAIN INCIDENT TO INSPECTION OF SHIP. SINCE RECORD SHOWS THAT SCHEDULING OF TRAVEL WAS NOT DUE TO EMERGENCY SO THAT TRAVEL COULD BE SCHEDULED AND CONTROLLED, COMPENSATION FOR OFF DUTY HOUR TRAVEL WHEN EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ORDERS, RESERVATION, IDENTIFICATION AND PASSPORT MAY NOT BE PAID.

TO MR. MCCAGE FORD:

BY LETTER OF AUGUST 17, 1970, REFERENCE IS/LOCAL 53, MR. J. F. GRINER, IN YOUR BEHALF, REQUESTED RECONSIDERATION OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION SETTLEMENT LETTER OF FEBRUARY 11, 1970, DENYING YOUR CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR TRAVEL DURING OFF-DUTY HOURS INCIDENT TO TEMPORARY DUTY IN PALMA, MAJORCA, SPAIN, DURING JULY AND AUGUST, 1969.

THE FACTS WHICH ARE SET FORTH IN OUR SETTLEMENT LETTER OF FEBRUARY 11 ARE REPEATED HERE ONLY TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY FOR REVIEW. YOU CLAIM 29 HOURS AND 20 MINUTES FOR TIME SPENT TRAVELING FROM NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, TO PALMA, MAJORCA, AND RETURN DURING OFF-DUTY HOURS. ACCORDING TO THE RECORD YOU DEPARTED NORFOLK AT 4:50 P.M. ON SATURDAY, JULY 26, 1969, AND ARRIVED AT PALMA AT 1 P.M. ON JULY 27. YOU DEPARTED PALMA AT 11 A.M. ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1969, AND ARRIVED AT NORFOLK AT 4:10 A.M., AUGUST 9. YOU STATE THAT YOU HAD BEEN RELIEVED ONE DAY EARLY FROM TWO WEEKS OF MILITARY DUTY AND REPORTED FOR CIVILIAN DUTY ON JULY 25, 1970, AT 2:45 P.M. ABOUT TWO HOURS OF DUTY WERE NECESSARY ON THE 25TH TO OBTAIN TRAVEL ORDERS, MAKE RESERVATIONS, AND TO GET AN IDENTIFICATION PASS AND YOUR PASSPORT PRIOR TO YOUR DEPARTURE ON JULY 26.

AS STATED IN OUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 11 THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF LAW ARE CONTAINED IN 5 U.S.C. 5542. YOU URGE THAT YOUR SITUATION IS COVERED BY 5542(B)(2XB)(IV) WHICH PROVIDES IN PART THAT:

"TIME SPENT IN A TRAVEL STATUS AWAY FROM THE OFFICIAL DUTY STATION OF AN EMPLOYEE IS NOT HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT UNLESS-

"(B) THE TRAVEL *** (IV) RESULTS FROM AN EVENT WHICH COULD NOT BE SCHEDULED OR CONTROLLED ADMINISTRATIVELY."

WE HAVE DISCUSSED YOUR CLAIM WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TEMPORARY DUTY PERTAINED TO INSPECTION (REP CHECK) OF A SHIP SCHEDULED FOR MAINTENANCE AVAILABILITY IN PALMA, A REPAIR AREA. ALTHOUGH MUCH OF THE DATA PERTAINING TO SHIPS AT SEA IS CLASSIFIED, IT IS REPORTED THAT NO EMERGENCY OR BREAKDOWN OF EQUIPMENT OCCURRED WHICH WOULD AFFECT THE OPERATIONAL CAPACITY OF THE SHIP NECESSITATING EMERGENCY REPAIRS. RATHER, SOME 10 DAYS BEFORE YOUR REPORTING TO PALMA IT HAD BEEN ANNOUNCED THAT THE SHIP IN QUESTION WOULD BE THERE FOR A LIMITED PERIOD AND AMONG THE NORMAL MAINTENANCE DESIRED WAS THE - REP CHECK - REFERRED TO ABOVE. THE PERIOD OF THE SHIPS AVAILABILITY FOR MAINTENANCE APPEARS TO BE THE CONTROLLING FACTOR INFLUENCING THE SCHEDULING OF YOUR TRAVEL RATHER THAN IT RESULTING FROM AN EVENT WHICH COULD NOT BE SCHEDULED OR CONTROLLED ADMINISTRATIVELY. ADDITIONALLY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY STATES THAT THE SCHEDULING OF THE TRAVEL INVOLVED WAS WITHIN ITS ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO SUSTAIN THE DENIAL ACTION AS STATED IN THE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT LETTER.