B-171991, APR 14, 1971

B-171991, APR 14, 1971

MILEAGE ALLOWANCE - PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION DECISION DENYING CLAIM BY FRANK A. ARASIM FOR $52.20 REPRESENTING REIMBURSEMENT FOR VICINITY TRAVEL FROM HIS RESIDENCE TO HIS NEW DUTY STATION. ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS ORIGINALLY ASSIGNED TO A DUTY STATION 8 MILES FROM HIS RESIDENCE, AN EXCHANGE OF ASSIGNMENTS RESULTED IN HIS ASSIGNMENT TO A DUTY STATION 20-25 MILES FROM HIS RESIDENCE, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SECOND FACILITY WAS TO CONSOLIDATE WITH ITS HEADQUARTERS IN THE VICINITY OF CLAIMANT'S RESIDENCE. NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE CONSOLIDATION NEVER TOOK PLACE, THE COMMENCEMENT OF CLAIMANT'S DUTIES AT THE SECOND DUTY STATION MUST BE VIEWED AS A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION. THEREFORE, THE PORTION OF THE CLAIM, REPRESENTING COMMUTING MILEAGE BETWEEN HIS RESIDENCE AND HIS NEW DUTY STATION OVER THE ORIGINAL DISTANCE TO THE FIRST DUTY STATION MUST BE DISALLOWED.

TO CAPTAIN JAMES E. CHITTICK:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED DECEMBER 9, 1970, WITH ENCLOSURES, IN WHICH YOU REQUEST A DECISION IN THE CASE OF MR. FRANK A. ARASIM CONCERNING HIS CLAIM IN THE AMOUNT OF $52.20 REPRESENTING REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENDITURES FOR VICINITY TRAVEL DURING MARCH 1970 FROM HIS RESIDENCE TO HIS NEW DUTY STATION. YOUR LETTER WAS FORWARDED TO THIS OFFICE BY FIRST INDORSEMENT OF THE PER DIEM, TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE COMMITTEE AND WAS ASSIGNED PDTATAC CONTROL NO. 71-8.

YOU STATE THAT MR. ARASIM WAS OFFICIALLY ASSIGNED TO THE FUTURE CRAFT CORPORATION IN THE CITY OF INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA, APPROXIMATELY 8 MILES FROM HIS RESIDENCE IN WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT REQUEST FOR PERSONNEL ACTION, STANDARD FORM 52, AND NOTIFICATION OF PERSONNEL ACTION, STANDARD FORM 50, WERE INITIATED ON FEBRUARY 25, 1970, AND APRIL 15, 1970, RESPECTIVELY, TO ACCOMPLISH A PERMANENT EXCHANGE OF ASSIGNMENTS INVOLVING MR. ARASIM AND ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL, WHOSE ASSIGNMENT WAS AT THE HOWMET CORPORATION FACILITY IN POMONA, CALIFORNIA, 20-25 MILES FROM MR. ARASIM'S RESIDENCE. IT IS STATED THAT THE EXCHANGE WAS MADE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS TO BE PERMANENT AND WAS AGREED TO BY BOTH PARTIES. THIS EXCHANGE, IT APPEARS, TOOK PLACE WITH THE CONSIDERATION IN VIEW THAT THE HOWMET CORPORATION FACILITY IN POMONA WAS TO BE CONSOLIDATED WITH ITS HEADQUARTERS IN MONTIBELLO, CALIFORNIA, WHICH WOULD HAVE PLACED MR. ARASIM'S DUTY STATION CLOSER TO HIS RESIDENCE. HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION DID NOT OCCUR AND MR. ARASIM CONTINUED TO PERFORM DUTIES IN POMONA.

IT IS ALSO STATED THAT ALTHOUGH THE EXCHANGE WAS IMMEDIATE (MR. ARASIM ASSUMED HIS DUTIES IN POMONA ON FEBRUARY 23, 1970) THE PERSONNEL ACTION OFFICIALLY EFFECTING THE CHANGE WAS NOT ISSUED UNTIL APRIL 15, 1970, EFFECTIVE APRIL 19, 1970.

IT APPEARS FROM THE ENCLOSURES WITH YOUR LETTER THAT MR. ARASIM BELIEVES THAT THE REASSIGNMENT TO POMONA SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS TEMPORARY DUTY AT LEAST UNTIL THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF HIS FORMAL TRANSFER TO POMONA ON APRIL 19, 1970, BECAUSE HE ACCEPTED THE ASSIGNMENT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT HE WOULD BE STATIONED AT THE HOWMET FACILITY IN MONTIBELLO WHEN THE CONSOLIDATION OCCURRED.

YOU STATE THAT SINCE MR. ARASIM'S REASSIGNMENT WAS REGARDED AS A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION TO HOWMET CORPORATION, DOUBT EXISTS AS TO THE LEGALITY OF HIS CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE VICINITY TRAVEL FROM HIS RESIDENCE TO HIS NEW DUTY STATION IN POMONA FOR THE PERIODS COVERED BY THE VOUCHER ATTACHED TO YOUR LETTER.

THE OFFICIAL STATION OF AN EMPLOYEE IS A QUESTION OF FACT AND IS NOT LIMITED BY ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGNATION. IT HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY HELD BY THIS OFFICE THAT AN EMPLOYEE'S OFFICIAL DUTY STATION IS THE PLACE AT WHICH HE PERFORMS THE MAJOR PART OF HIS DUTIES AND IS EXPECTED TO SPEND THE GREATER PART OF HIS TIME. 32 COMP. GEN. 87 (1952). ON FEBRUARY 23, 1970, MR. ARASIM ASSUMED HIS DUTIES AT THE HOWMET FACILITY IN POMONA. THIS WAS WHERE HE PERFORMED THE MAJOR PART OF HIS DUTIES AND WHERE HE WAS EXPECTED TO SPEND THE GREATER PART OF HIS TIME. FURTHERMORE, ALTHOUGH IT HAD APPEARED AT THE TIME OF THE PHYSICAL REASSIGNMENT THAT IN THE FUTURE THE HOWMET FACILITY IN POMONA WOULD BE CONSOLIDATED WITH HOWMET'S HEADQUARTERS IN MONTIBELLO, THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT MR. ARASIM'S ASSIGNMENT AT POMONA WAS TO BE TEMPORARY PENDING THE CONSUMMATION OF THE CONSOLIDATION. THE REQUEST FOR PERSONNEL ACTION CONTAINED ONLY A STATEMENT THAT THIS WAS A REASSIGNMENT. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE COMMENCEMENT OF DUTIES AT POMONA ON FEBRUARY 23, 1970, MUST BE VIEWED AS A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION EFFECTIVE ON THAT DATE.

ACCORDINGLY THAT PORTION OF THE ATTACHED VOUCHER REPRESENTING COMMUTING MILEAGE BETWEEN MR. ARASIM'S RESIDENCE IN WHITTIER AND HIS NEW DUTY LOCATION IN POMONA OVER THE ORIGINAL COMMUTING DISTANCE BETWEEN WHITTIER AND THE CITY OF INDUSTRY MAY NOT BE ALLOWED.

THE VOUCHER IS RETURNED HEREWITH FOR HANDLING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING.