B-171678, APR 27, 1971
Highlights
STOPPING THERE 3-DAYS DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND HIS CONTROL. THEREFORE THERE IS NO VALID BASES FOR PER DIEM. YOU ARE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PER DIEM COMPUTATION RATHER THAN THE AIR FARE SINCE YOU HAVE NOT PRESENTED ANY ARGUMENT AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE LATTER. SECTION 115 OF FAM PROVIDES IN PART THAT A TRAVELER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CORRECT PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL TRAVEL AND FOR THE PAYMENT OF ANY CHARGES INCURRED THROUGH FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH GOVERNING REGULATIONS. STOPPING THERE 3 DAYS DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN BECAUSE OF A SCHEDULE CHANGE. OUR RECORDS SHOW IT WAS BASED ON TRAVEL TIME USING DIRECT AIR SERVICES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR RECLAIM MUST BE AND IS SUSTAINED.
B-171678, APR 27, 1971
CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE - TRAVEL EXPENSES - PER DIEM DISALLOWING CLAIM FOR PER DIEM ADMINISTRATIVELY SUSPENDED FROM ORIGINAL TRAVEL VOUCHER DUE TO INDIRECT TRAVEL FROM BEIRUT, LEBANON, TO LONDON. CLAIMANT'S TRAVEL FROM BEIRUT TO LONDON VIA VIENNA, AUSTRIA, STOPPING THERE 3-DAYS DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND HIS CONTROL. THEREFORE THERE IS NO VALID BASES FOR PER DIEM.
TO MR. ALLAN W. OTTO:
YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 5, 1970, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTED THAT WE RECONSIDER OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT DATED AUGUST 21, 1969, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR RECLAIM OF PER DIEM ($138) AND FOREIGN AIRLINE FARE ($420.40) ADMINISTRATIVELY SUSPENDED FROM YOUR ORIGINAL TRAVEL VOUCHER DUE TO YOUR INDIRECT TRAVEL FROM BEIRUT, LEBANON, TO LONDON, ENGLAND.
APPARENTLY, YOU ARE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PER DIEM COMPUTATION RATHER THAN THE AIR FARE SINCE YOU HAVE NOT PRESENTED ANY ARGUMENT AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE LATTER. IN THAT CONNECTION WE NOTE THAT FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE AIR FARE A WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER 6 FOREIGN AFFAIRS MANUAL (FAM) SECTION 134.4 (TL:GS 100).
YOU ELECTED NOT TO USE THE AVAILABLE AMERICAN-FLAG AIRLINE SERVICE BETWEEN BEIRUT AND LONDON BECAUSE OF YOUR WIFE'S CONDITION AND THE REPUTATION ASSERTED BY YOU REGARDING OTHER AIRLINE SERVICES. HOWEVER, THE THEORETICAL ITINERARY PROPOSED BY YOU WOULD NOT WARRANT ALLOWANCE OF THE ADDITIONAL PER DIEM RECLAIMED BY YOU.
SECTION 115 OF FAM PROVIDES IN PART THAT A TRAVELER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CORRECT PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL TRAVEL AND FOR THE PAYMENT OF ANY CHARGES INCURRED THROUGH FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH GOVERNING REGULATIONS. YOUR TRAVEL FROM BEIRUT TO LONDON, VIA VIENNA, AUSTRIA, AND STOPPING THERE 3 DAYS DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN BECAUSE OF A SCHEDULE CHANGE, OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE BEYOND YOUR CONTROL, WHILE TRAVELING EN ROUTE. SEE THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 134.4.
AS TO THE PER DIEM COMPUTATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE (AUDIT STATEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 21, 1968), OUR RECORDS SHOW IT WAS BASED ON TRAVEL TIME USING DIRECT AIR SERVICES, INCLUDING AVAILABLE AMERICAN FLAG AIRCRAFT FROM BEIRUT TO LONDON ON SEPTEMBER 11, 1968. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO VALID BASIS FOR A REVISION OF THE PER DIEM PAYMENT BASED UPON THE CONSTRUCTIVE ALTERNATIVE ITINERARY AS PROPOSED ON YOUR TRAVEL VOUCHER AND WITH YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 5, 1970.
IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR RECLAIM MUST BE AND IS SUSTAINED.