B-175842, JUN 1, 1972

B-175842: Jun 1, 1972

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

IT IS NOT THE EMPLOYEE'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME LIMIT BUT RATHER THE AGENCY'S AUTHORIZATION OR APPROVAL OF THE EXTENSION WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF STAYING THE RUNNING OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD. WOULD NOT PRECLUDE AN EXTENSION BEING GRANTED AT THIS TIME SINCE THE SALE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO WITHIN THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD. TO MAJOR CARLOS SANCHEZ: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED MARCH 31. TIBBETT WAS AUTHORIZED A CHANGE OF OFFICIAL DUTY STATION FROM FORT WAYNE. AT THAT TIME HE WAS ADVISED TO SUBMIT A WRITTEN REQUEST TO SUCH EFFECT. A SETTLEMENT FOR WHICH WAS CONSUMMATED ON NOVEMBER 5. APPEARS THAT THIS MOVE PUT HIS NEW RESIDENCE AT APPROXIMATELY THE SAME DISTANCE FROM HIS NEW DUTY STATION AS HIS OLD RESIDENCE WAS DISTANT FROM THE NEW DUTY STATION. *** " MR.

B-175842, JUN 1, 1972

CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE - CHANGE OF STATION - SALE OF RESIDENCE ADVANCE DECISION CONCERNING A VOUCHER IN FAVOR OF FRANK W. TIBBETT, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY, FOR EXPENSES INCIDENT TO THE SALE OF A RESIDENCE FOLLOWING A CHANGE OF STATION. IN CASES SUCH AS THIS, IT IS NOT THE EMPLOYEE'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME LIMIT BUT RATHER THE AGENCY'S AUTHORIZATION OR APPROVAL OF THE EXTENSION WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF STAYING THE RUNNING OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD. ACCORDINGLY, JTR, VOL. 2, C8350, WOULD NOT PRECLUDE AN EXTENSION BEING GRANTED AT THIS TIME SINCE THE SALE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO WITHIN THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD.

TO MAJOR CARLOS SANCHEZ:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED MARCH 31, 1972, WITH ENCLOSURES, YOUR REFERENCE DCRI-FA AND ASSIGNED PDTATAC CONTROL NO. 72 17, REQUESTING AN ADVANCE DECISION CONCERNING A VOUCHER IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,478.25 IN FAVOR OF MR. FRANK W. TIBBETT, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT UNDER TRAVEL ORDER NO. 3532, DATED OCTOBER 28, 1970, MR. TIBBETT WAS AUTHORIZED A CHANGE OF OFFICIAL DUTY STATION FROM FORT WAYNE, INDIANA, TO HUNTINGTON, INDIANA. PURSUANT TO SUCH AUTHORIZATION, MR. TIBBETT APPARENTLY REPORTED TO THE NEW DUTY STATION ON NOVEMBER 1, 1970 (STATED BY YOU TO BE NOVEMBER 2, 1970).

THE RECORD FURTHER SHOWS THAT MR. TIBBETT CONTINUED TO RESIDE AT HIS OLD RESIDENCE IN FORT WAYNE, INDIANA, AND COMMUTED DAILY TO THE NEW DUTY STATION BECAUSE OF DIFFICULTY IN THE SALE OF HIS OLD RESIDENCE. IN VIEW THEREOF MR. TIBBETT ALLEGEDLY MADE AN ORAL REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE THE SALE OF HIS PROPERTY. AT THAT TIME HE WAS ADVISED TO SUBMIT A WRITTEN REQUEST TO SUCH EFFECT. THE RECORD INDICATES, HOWEVER, THAT MR. TIBBETT NEVER COMPLIED WITH THIS ADVICE. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER SHOWN THAT ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1971, MR. TIBBETT ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF HIS FORT WAYNE, INDIANA, RESIDENCE; A SETTLEMENT FOR WHICH WAS CONSUMMATED ON NOVEMBER 5, 1971.

YOU STATED IN YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 31, 1972, THAT:

"C. MR. TIBBETT ULTIMATELY RELOCATED IN A MOBILE HOME ON A RENTED LOT ABOUT TWO (2) MILES EAST OF THE FORT WAYNE, INDIANA, CITY LIMITS. APPEARS THAT THIS MOVE PUT HIS NEW RESIDENCE AT APPROXIMATELY THE SAME DISTANCE FROM HIS NEW DUTY STATION AS HIS OLD RESIDENCE WAS DISTANT FROM THE NEW DUTY STATION. *** "

MR. TIBBETT HAS NOW SUBMITTED FOR PAYMENT A VOUCHER IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,478.25 FOR THOSE COSTS WHICH WERE INCURRED INCIDENT TO THE SALE OF HIS FORMER HOME.

WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM HERE INVOLVED, YOU HAVE ASKED THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

"A. DID THE ORAL REQUEST MADE BY MR. TIBBETT OPERATE TO STAY THE RUNNING OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD OF LIMITATION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF THE SALE OF HIS RESIDENCE?

"B. IF THE ANSWER TO THE ABOVE IS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, DOES THE JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EXTENSION ASSERTED BY MR. TIBBETT MEET THE STANDARD FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THE SITUATIONS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH 6, JTR C8350?

"C. IN CONNECTION WITH REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES INCURRED BY AN EMPLOYEE IN THE SALE OF HIS FORMER RESIDENCE, IS IT NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE RELOCATION WAS INCIDENT TO A NEW DUTY TRANSFER, IN ANY CASE OTHER THAN A CHANGE OF STATION 'WITHIN THE SAME CITY OR AREA' AS SPECIFIED IN JTR C4108?"

THE CONTROLLING REGULATIONS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB) CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED JUNE 26, 1969, PROVIDE IN SECTION 4.1E IN PERTINENT PART THAT:

" *** AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF TIME NOT IN EXCESS OF ONE YEAR MAY BE AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED BY THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY OR HIS DESIGNEE WHEN HE DETERMINES THAT CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING THE EXCEPTION EXIST WHICH PRECLUDED SETTLEMENT WITHIN THE INITIAL ONE-YEAR PERIOD OF THE SALE/PURCHASE CONTRACTS OR LEASE TERMINATION ARRANGEMENT ENTERED INTO IN GOOD FAITH BY THE EMPLOYEE WITHIN THE INITIAL ONE-YEAR PERIOD. THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE DETERMINED BY THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY OR HIS DESIGNEE TO JUSTIFY THE EXCEPTION UNDER (2) ABOVE SHALL BE SET FORTH IN WRITING."

CONCERNING YOUR FIRST AND SECOND QUESTIONS, WE NOTE THAT IN CASES SUCH AS THE ONE HERE INVOLVED IT IS NOT THE EMPLOYEE'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION BUT RATHER THE AGENCY AUTHORIZATION OR APPROVAL OF AN EXTENSION WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF STAYING THE RUNNING OF THE 1-YEAR PERIOD OF LIMITATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NOTHING IN THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS (JTR), VOLUME 2, C8350, OR OTHERWISE WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE AN EXTENSION BEING APPROVED AT THIS TIME SINCE IT APPEARS THAT THE CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF HIS OLD RESIDENCE WAS ENTERED INTO WITHIN 1 YEAR AFTER HE REPORTED TO THE NEW DUTY STATION.

CONCERNING YOUR THIRD QUESTION, WE INDICATED IN B-172705, MAY 28, 1971, COPY ENCLOSED, THAT WHETHER A CHANGE OF OFFICIAL STATION INVOLVES A "SHORT DISTANCE" WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION C4108 OF JTR (WHICH IS BASED UPON SECTION 1.3A(2) OF OMB CIRCULAR NO. A-56), DOES NOT CHANGE THE STANDARD APPLICABLE TO ALL CASES THAT AN EMPLOYEE'S RELOCATION OF RESIDENCE BE INCIDENT TO THE CHANGE OF OFFICIAL STATION. ORDINARILY, WE DO NOT LOOK BEHIND AN AGENCY'S DETERMINATION THAT THE SALE AND/OR PURCHASE OF HOUSING BY AN EMPLOYEE WAS OR WAS NOT INCIDENT TO THE TRANSFER OF HIS OFFICIAL STATION. THE FACTS AS PRESENTED ARE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR US TO EXPRESS AN OPINION EITHER WAY IN THE MATTER.

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