B-174667, FEB 8, 1972

B-174667: Feb 8, 1972

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

ASSIGNMENTS BY "DETAIL" INVOLVE TEMPORARY DUTY AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS ON REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEE'S RESIDENCE AND PERMANENT DUTY STATION. SINCE A PERMANENT CHANGE TO ANY OF THE DUTY SITES WAS NEVER INTENDED. CHITTICK: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 27. WHICH WAS ASSIGNED PDTATAC CONTROL NO. 71- 56 BY THE PER DIEM. YOU HAVE STATED THAT MR. JEFFRIES' PERMANENT ASSIGNMENT WAS AT THE TELEDYNE RYAN PLANT IN SAN DIEGO. HE WAS DETAILED TO VARIOUS OTHER LOCATIONS IN CHULA VISTA. EACH OF THE DETAILS WAS EFFECTED PURSUANT TO AN INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM OR A REQUEST FOR PERSONNEL ACTION (STANDARD FORM 52) AUTHORIZATION. SUCH DETAILS WERE SILENT WITH RESPECT TO AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT OF A MILEAGE ALLOWANCE TO MR.

B-174667, FEB 8, 1972

CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE - REIMBURSEMENT - PERMANENT DUTY STATION DECISION ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF RICHARD J. JEFFRIES FOR MILEAGE ALLOWANCES INCIDENT TO OFFICIAL DETAILS FOR DUTY AT PLACES OTHER THAN HIS PERMANENT ASSIGNMENT LOCATION. ASSIGNMENTS BY "DETAIL" INVOLVE TEMPORARY DUTY AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS ON REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEE'S RESIDENCE AND PERMANENT DUTY STATION. SINCE A PERMANENT CHANGE TO ANY OF THE DUTY SITES WAS NEVER INTENDED, THE COMP. GEN. HAS NO OBJECTION TO CERTIFICATION OF THE VOUCHER FOR PAYMENT.

TO CAPTAIN JAMES E. CHITTICK:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 1971, WITH ENCLOSURES, REFERENCE DCRL-FA, WHICH WAS ASSIGNED PDTATAC CONTROL NO. 71- 56 BY THE PER DIEM, TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE COMMITTEE AND RECEIVED IN OUR OFFICE ON DECEMBER 3, 1971. THE SUBJECT LETTER REQUESTS AN ADVANCE DECISION ON THE CLAIM OF MR. RICHARD J. JEFFRIES FOR MILEAGE ALLOWANCES IN THE AMOUNT OF $390.40, REPRESENTING LOCAL TRAVEL INCIDENT TO OFFICIAL DETAILS FOR DUTY AT DESIGNATED PLACES OTHER THAN HIS PERMANENT ASSIGNMENT LOCATION.

YOU HAVE STATED THAT MR. JEFFRIES' PERMANENT ASSIGNMENT WAS AT THE TELEDYNE RYAN PLANT IN SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, AND THAT DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN MARCH 1 AND JUNE 11, 1971, HE WAS DETAILED TO VARIOUS OTHER LOCATIONS IN CHULA VISTA, SOLANA BEACH, AND ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA. EACH OF THE DETAILS WAS EFFECTED PURSUANT TO AN INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM OR A REQUEST FOR PERSONNEL ACTION (STANDARD FORM 52) AUTHORIZATION. SUCH DETAILS WERE SILENT WITH RESPECT TO AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT OF A MILEAGE ALLOWANCE TO MR. JEFFRIES FOR THE USE OF HIS PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLE BETWEEN HIS RESIDENCE IN SAN DIEGO AND THE DETAIL LOCATIONS. YOU HAVE ALSO STATED THAT ON JUNE 14, 1971, MR. JEFFRIES RETURNED TO HIS NORMAL DUTIES AT THE PLACE OF HIS PERMANENT ASSIGNMENT, THE TELEDYNE RYAN PLANT IN SAN DIEGO.

YOUR DOUBT IN THE MATTER ARISES BECAUSE OF THE SOMEWHAT PROTRACTED NATURE OF THESE DETAILS AND THE RULE OF 32 COMP. GEN. 87 (1952) SETTING FORTH STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED IN DETERMINING AN EMPLOYEE'S DE FACTO PERMANENT DUTY STATION. THIS DETERMINATION IS CRITICAL BECAUSE OF THE LONG-STANDING RULE THAT AN EMPLOYEE MUST BEAR THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN HIS RESIDENCE AND HIS PLACE OF DUTY AT HIS OFFICIAL (PERMANENT) STATION. SEE 27 COMP. GEN. 1 (1947). YOU APPARENTLY QUESTION WHETHER CHANGES IN ASSIGNMENT, CHARACTERIZED AS DETAILS, REQUIRE APPLICATION OF THE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED FOR DETERMINING THE FACTUAL QUESTION OF WHERE AN EMPLOYEE'S PERMANENT DUTY STATION IS SITUATED.

WE BELIEVE THAT ASSIGNMENTS BY "DETAIL" ORDINARILY CONTEMPLATE PERIODS OF TEMPORARY DUTY WITHIN THE DEFINITIONS SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH C1100, VOLUME 2, JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS (JTR). IN THIS CONNECTION "TEMPORARY DUTY STATION" IS DEFINED AS THE LOCATION OF AN ACTIVITY, AREA, OR PLACE OF DUTY TO WHICH AN EMPLOYEE IS ASSIGNED TEMPORARILY IN CONNECTION WITH GOVERNMENT BUSINESS AND FROM WHICH HE WILL PROCEED OR RETURN TO HIS PERMANENT DUTY STATION. IT HAS ALSO BEEN OUR VIEW THAT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A PARTICULAR DUTY STATION IS TEMPORARY IS ONE OF FACT TO BE DETERMINED FROM THE ORDERS DIRECTING PERFORMANCE OF THE SUBJECT DUTY. WHERE NECESSARY, RESOLUTION OF THE QUESTION WOULD DEPEND ON THE CHARACTER OF THE ASSIGNMENT, PARTICULARLY ITS DURATION AND THE NATURE OF THE DUTY. SEE B- 172207, JULY 21, 1971, COPY ENCLOSED, AND 33 COMP. GEN. 98 (1953) CITED THEREIN.

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

IN VIEW OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE SEE NO REASON TO QUESTION THE PROPRIETY OF THE INSTANT CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER THE DETAIL SITES CONSTITUTE PERMANENT DUTY STATIONS UNDER THE STANDARDS DESCRIBED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, THE VOUCHER RETURNED HEREWITH MAY BE PAID IF A MILEAGE ALLOWANCE IS APPROVED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH C6153, VOLUME 2, JTR, AND IF THE VOUCHER IS OTHERWISE CORRECT.