B-176476, AUG 21, 1972

B-176476: Aug 21, 1972

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

SINCE THE SKIRTING OF THE MOBILE HOME WAS NOT TAKEN FROM THE FORMER STATION AND REINSTALLED. WAS CONSTRUCTED AT THE NEW STATION. THE FACT THAT THE SKIRTING WAS REQUIRED BY THE TRAILER PARK PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR CONSIDERING THE EXPENSE REIMBURSABLE. REIMBURSEMENT OF THAT COST WAS DENIED ON HIS ORIGINAL VOUCHER AND WAS RECLAIMED ON THE VOUCHER PRESENTED FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. BLOCKING AND RELATED EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH THE RELOCATION OF A MOBILE HOME ARE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 3. HUGHES' MOBILE HOME WAS NOT TAKEN FROM THE FORMER STATION AND REINSTALLED BUT WAS NEWLY CONSTRUCTED AT HIS NEW STATION THE COST THEREOF MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING HIS ENTITLEMENT TO A MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE ALLOWANCE.

B-176476, AUG 21, 1972

CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE - CHANGE OF STATION - MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES DENIAL OF CLAIM OF WILLIAM E. HUGHES FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS INCURRED FOR "SKIRTING AROUND THE BASE OF HIS MOBILE HOME" INCIDENT TO HIS TRANSFER AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FAA FROM LAFAYETTE, LA., TO SAN ANTONIO, TEX. SINCE THE SKIRTING OF THE MOBILE HOME WAS NOT TAKEN FROM THE FORMER STATION AND REINSTALLED, BUT WAS CONSTRUCTED AT THE NEW STATION, THE COST THEREOF MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED A MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE. THE FACT THAT THE SKIRTING WAS REQUIRED BY THE TRAILER PARK PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR CONSIDERING THE EXPENSE REIMBURSABLE.

TO MR. R. J. SCHULLERY:

WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 7, 1972, BY WHICH YOU REQUEST OUR ADVANCE DECISION WHETHER YOU MAY PROPERLY CERTIFY FOR PAYMENT THE ENCLOSED VOUCHER OF MR. WILLIAM E. HUGHES TO REIMBURSE HIM THE COSTS HE INCURRED FOR "SKIRTING AROUND THE BASE OF HIS MOBILE HOME" INCIDENT TO HIS TRANSFER AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION FROM LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA, TO SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.

MR. HUGHES INCURRED A COST OF $262.50 AFTER MOVING INTO THE SAN PEDRO MOBILE HOME PARK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SKIRT ENCLOSING THE AREA UNDER HIS MOBILE HOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PARK. REIMBURSEMENT OF THAT COST WAS DENIED ON HIS ORIGINAL VOUCHER AND WAS RECLAIMED ON THE VOUCHER PRESENTED FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. YOU QUESTION WHETHER THIS EXPENSE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A REIMBURSABLE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE UNDER SECTION 3.1B(2) OF THE EMPLOYEE RELOCATION ALLOWANCE REGULATIONS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED AUGUST 17, 1971, WHICH PROVIDES THAT UNBLOCKING, BLOCKING AND RELATED EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH THE RELOCATION OF A MOBILE HOME ARE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 3, OR WHETHER SUCH COSTS MUST BE CONSIDERED EXPENSES OF STRUCTURAL ALTERATION, REMODELING OR MODERNIZING UNDER SECTION 3.1C(13) OF THAT REGULATION AND THUS NOT ALLOWABLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT AS MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.

EMPLOYEES MAY BE REIMBURSED COSTS INVOLVED IN PREPARING THEIR MOBILE HOMES FOR SHIPMENT AND FOR REASSEMBLING THOSE MOBILE HOMES AT THE NEW LOCATION AS MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES UNDER THE CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 3 OF THE CITED REGULATIONS. B-175285, APRIL 20, 1972, COPY ENCLOSED. HOWEVER, THE CONTROLLING REGULATIONS DO NOT CONTEMPLATE UNDERWRITING THE COST OF NEW FURNISHINGS OR EQUIPMENT FOR AN EMPLOYEE'S HOME. SEE B-163449, MARCH 4, 1968, COPY ENCLOSED. SINCE THE SKIRTING OF MR. HUGHES' MOBILE HOME WAS NOT TAKEN FROM THE FORMER STATION AND REINSTALLED BUT WAS NEWLY CONSTRUCTED AT HIS NEW STATION THE COST THEREOF MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING HIS ENTITLEMENT TO A MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE ALLOWANCE. THE FACT THAT SKIRTING WAS REQUIRED BY THE MOBILE HOME PARK PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR CONSIDERING THE EXPENSE INVOLVED REIMBURSABLE AS A MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE. COMPARE B 164057, OCTOBER 3, 1968, COPY ENCLOSED.

FOR THE REASONS STATED THE VOUCHER, WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH, MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.