B-205695, AUG 2, 1982

B-205695: Aug 2, 1982

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

AN EMPLOYEE WAS TRANSFERRED TO WASHINGTON. HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS WERE MOVED UNDER THE ACTUAL EXPENSE METHOD. BECAUSE HIS NEW HOME WAS NOT READY FOR OCCUPANCY. THE ACTUAL COSTS OF SUCH STORAGE MAY BE REIMBURSED NOT TO EXCEED A REASONABLE AMOUNT IF THE CLAIM IS PROPERLY DOCUMENTED. THESE ITEMS ARE MATTERS OF PERSONAL PREFERENCE AND ARE NOT REIMBURSABLE AS MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES. THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BECAUSE MR. PHILLIPS WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THE DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY IN OHIO TO GSA IN WASHINGTON. HE SEEKS REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE COST OF THE TEMPORARY STORAGE OF HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS IN THE BASEMENT OF THE UNFINISHED HOME THAT HE WAS PURCHASING AT HIS NEW DUTY STATION. IF THE CLAIM IS PROPERLY DOCUMENTED.

B-205695, AUG 2, 1982

DIGEST: 1. AN EMPLOYEE WAS TRANSFERRED TO WASHINGTON, D. C., AND HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS WERE MOVED UNDER THE ACTUAL EXPENSE METHOD. BECAUSE HIS NEW HOME WAS NOT READY FOR OCCUPANCY, HE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE BUILDER TO TEMPORARILY STORE HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS IN THE BASEMENT OF THE UNFINISHED HOME. THE ACTUAL COSTS OF SUCH STORAGE MAY BE REIMBURSED NOT TO EXCEED A REASONABLE AMOUNT IF THE CLAIM IS PROPERLY DOCUMENTED. FEDERAL TRAVEL REGULATIONS PARAGRAPH 2-8.5B(2). 2. UNDER FEDERAL TRAVEL REGULATIONS PARAGRAPH 2-3.1, IMPLEMENTING 5 U.S.C. SEC. 5724AB) (1976), MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES INCURRED BECAUSE OF A TRANSFER MAY BE REIMBURSED, BUT NOT THOSE COSTS INCURRED FOR REASONS OF PERSONAL TASTE OR PREFERENCE AND NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE MOVE. THE EMPLOYEE MAY BE ALLOWED REIMBURSEMENT OF (1) THE COST OF CABLE TELEVISION INSTALLATION TO THE SAME LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT HE HAD AT HIS PREVIOUS RESIDENCE, (2) ALL COSTS INCURRED AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A NEW DOG LICENSE, AND (3) TRAVELER'S CHECKS AS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY FTR PARAGRAPH 1-9.1B-1. 3. UNDER FEDERAL TRAVEL REGULATIONS PARAGRAPH 2-3.1, IMPLEMENTING 5 U.S.C. SEC. 5724AB) (1976), MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES INCURRED, BECAUSE OF A TRANSFER MAY BE REIMBURSED, BUT NOT THOSE COSTS INCURRED FOR REASONS OF PERSONAL TASTE OR PREFERENCE AND NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE MOVE. THE EMPLOYEE MAY NOT BE REIMBURSED (1) A SCHOOL TEXTBOOK RENTAL FEE, (2) A COMMISSION FOR THE SALE OF HIS LAWN TRACTOR, (3) THE COST OF TRANSMITTING HIS TRAVEL ORDER AND SERVICE AGREEMENT BY EXPRESS MAIL IN ORDER TO OBTAIN AN IMPREST FUND PAYMENT ON ARRIVAL AT HIS NEW DUTY STATION, OR (4) THE COST OF TRANSFERRING THE PROCEEDS OF HIS PAYROLL CHECKS BY WIRE TO HIS BANK AT HIS OLD PLACE OF RESIDENCE. THESE ITEMS ARE MATTERS OF PERSONAL PREFERENCE AND ARE NOT REIMBURSABLE AS MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.

CYRUS E. PHILLIPS IV - TEMPORARY STORAGE EXPENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES:

MR. JOHN M. GREGG, AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICER, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA), HAS REQUESTED A DECISION ON REIMBURSING MR. CYRUS E. PHILLIPS IV FOR TEMPORARY STORAGE EXPENSES AND CERTAIN MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES. THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BECAUSE MR. PHILLIPS WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THE DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY IN OHIO TO GSA IN WASHINGTON, D. C. SPECIFICALLY, HE SEEKS REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE COST OF THE TEMPORARY STORAGE OF HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS IN THE BASEMENT OF THE UNFINISHED HOME THAT HE WAS PURCHASING AT HIS NEW DUTY STATION, AS WELL AS THE FOLLOWING MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES: (1) ADDITIONAL CABLE TELEVISION OUTLET INSTALLATION; (2) VETERINARY SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A NEW DOG LICENSE; (3) NEW TEXTBOOK RENTAL FEES FOR HIS CHILDREN AT THE NEW PLACE OF RESIDENCE; (4) ISSUANCE OF TRAVELER'S CHECKS; (5) COMMISSION FOR THE SALE OF HIS LAWN TRACTOR AT HIS PREVIOUS PLACE OF RESIDENCE; (6) TRANSMITTING HIS TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION AND SERVICE AGREEMENT BY EXPRESS MAIL IN ORDER TO OBTAIN AN IMPREST FUND PAYMENT ON ARRIVAL AT HIS NEW DUTY STATION; AND, (7) THE COST OF TRANSFERRING HIS PAYROLL CHECK PROCEEDS BY WIRE FROM HIS SAVINGS ACCOUNT AT HIS NEW DUTY STATION TO HIS CHECKING ACCOUNT AT HIS OLD DUTY STATION.

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE CLAIMANT MAY BE REIMBURSED FOR THE ACTUAL COSTS OF THE TEMPORARY STORAGE OF HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS, NOT TO EXCEED A REASONABLE AMOUNT, IF THE CLAIM IS PROPERLY DOCUMENTED. HE MAY ALSO BE REIMBURSED ITEMS (1) AND (2), AS MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES. ITEM (4) IS SEPARATELY ALLOWABLE. HOWEVER, MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (3), (5), (6), AND (7) ARE DENIED.

TEMPORARY STORAGE

UNDER 5 U.S.C. SEC. 5724(A)(2) (1976), A TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO THE EXPENSE OF TEMPORARILY STORING HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS NOT IN EXCESS OF 11,000 POUNDS NET WEIGHT. THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS ARE CONTAINED IN THE FEDERAL TRAVEL REGULATIONS, FPMR 101-7 (MAY 1973) (FTR), PARAGRAPH 2- 8.5. PARAGRAPH 2-8.5B(2) PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE ACTUAL EXPENSE METHOD OF TRANSPORTATION IS USED, THE GOVERNMENT WILL NORMALLY ARRANGE AND PAY FOR NECESSARY TEMPORARY STORAGE. HOWEVER, IF AN EMPLOYEE MUST ARRANGE FOR TEMPORARY STORAGE HIMSELF, HE MAY BE REIMBURSED FOR REASONABLE COSTS INCURRED FOR STORAGE INCLUDING IN AND OUT CHARGES AND NECESSARY DRAYAGE WITHIN THE APPLICABLE LIMITATIONS.

MR. PHILLIPS' HOUSEHOLD GOODS WERE MOVED ON A GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING UNDER THE ACTUAL EXPENSE METHOD TO THE HOME THAT HE WAS HAVING BUILT IN FREDERICKSBURG, VIRGINIA. THE HOME WAS NOT READY FOR OCCUPANCY WHEN THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS ARRIVED, SO MR. PHILLIPS AGREED TO PAY THE INTEREST ON THE BUILDER'S CONSTRUCTION LOAN FOR 1 MONTH IN CONSIDERATION FOR THE STORAGE OF THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS IN THE BASEMENT OF THE UNFINISHED HOUSE. MR. PHILLIPS WOULD NOT OTHERWISE HAVE HAD TO PAY THE INTEREST ON THE BUILDER'S CONSTRUCTION LOAN. MR. PHILLIPS CLAIMS $711.81 FOR STORING 9,600 POUNDS OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS FOR APPROXIMATELY 30 DAYS. MR. PHILLIPS' AGENCY OBTAINED A COST COMPARISON FROM GSA SHOWING THAT THE COST OF STORING 11,000 POUNDS OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS FOR 30 DAYS WAS ESTIMATED TO BE $720.50. THE CERTIFYING OFFICER ASKS WHETHER MR. PHILLIPS' CLAIM FOR TEMPORARY STORAGE IN HIS UNFINISHED HOME IS PROPERLY PAYABLE, NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED TO STORE 9,600 POUNDS OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS IN FREDERICKSBURG WITH A COMMERCIAL MOVING FIRM.

WE SEE NOTHING IN THE STATUTES OR REGULATIONS TO PRECLUDE REIMBURSEMENT FOR TEMPORARY STORAGE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. PARAGRAPH 2-8.5B(2) OF THE FTR SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZES REIMBURSEMENT FOR REASONABLE COSTS OF TEMPORARY STORAGE WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO WHERE THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS MUST BE STORED. IN B-169151, JUNE 12, 1970, WE PERMITTED REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF TEMPORARY STORAGE OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS IN THE BASEMENT OF THE HOME THE EMPLOYEE WAS BUYING AT HIS NEW DUTY STATION PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. SEE ALSO B-166277, MARCH 19, 1969. IN 53 COMP.GEN. 513 (1974), WE HELD THAT HOUSEHOLD GOODS COULD BE TEMPORARILY STORED IN NONCOMMERCIAL FACILITIES, PROVIDED THERE IS A RECEIPTED BILL THAT SHOWS THE STORAGE DATES, STORAGE LOCATIONS, AND ACTUAL WEIGHT OF THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS STORED.

WE BELIEVE THAT MR. PHILLIPS ACTED REASONABLY IN HIS STORAGE ARRANGEMENTS AND HE HAS FURNISHED A CHECK MADE OUT TO HIS BUILDER AS EVIDENCE OF STORAGE COSTS. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE CHECK ALONE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO WARRANT PAYMENT. IN ACCORDANCE WITH 53 COMP.GEN. 513, CITED ABOVE, MR. PHILLIPS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO FURNISH A RECEIPTED BILL SHOWING THE STORAGE DATES AND LOCATION, AND THE ACTUAL WEIGHT OF THE GOODS STORED.

ACCORDINGLY, IF MR. PHILLIPS FURNISHES SUCH A RECEIPTED BILL FOR THE STORAGE, HE MAY BE REIMBURSED FOR HIS ACTUAL COSTS OF THE TEMPORARY STORAGE OF HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS NOT TO EXCEED A REASONABLE AMOUNT, BASED ON 9,600 POUNDS OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS, PURSUANT TO FTR PARAGRAPH 2 8.5B(2). THE COMMERCIAL STORAGE CHARGES IN THE FREDRICKSBURG AREA MAY BE USED TO MEASURE THE REASONABLENESS OF THE COSTS.

MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES

UNDER 5 U.S.C. SEC. 5724AB) (1976), EMPLOYEES WITH IMMEDIATE FAMILIES WHO ARE TRANSFERRED IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT ARE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR CERTAIN MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES LIMITED TO AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING 2 WEEKS OF THE EMPLOYEE'S BASIC PAY. THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ARE CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 2, PART 3, OF THE FTR.

MR. PHILLIPS INCURRED SEVEN ITEMS OF EXPENSE TOTALLING $157.05 WHICH HE IS CLAIMING UNDER HIS MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE ALLOWANCE. SPECIFICALLY, HE CLAIMS THE COSTS OF:

(1) ADDITIONAL CABLE TELEVISION OUTLET INSTALLATION. $ 5.00

(2) VETERINARY SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A NEW DOG LICENSE. 18.00

(3) NEW TEXTBOOK RENTAL FEES FOR HIS CHILDREN AT THE NEW PLACE OF RESIDENCE. 5.50

(4) ISSUANCE OF TRAVELER'S CHECKS. 1.00

(5) THE COMMISSION FOR THE SALE OF HIS LAWN TRACTOR AT HIS PREVIOUS PLACE OF RESIDENCE. 105.00

(6) TRANSMITTING HIS TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION AND SERVICE AGREEMENT BY EXPRESS MAIL. 7.55

(7) THE COST OF TRANSFERRING HIS PAYROLL CHECK PROCEEDS BY WIRE 15.00 A DISCUSSION OF EACH ITEM FOLLOWS.

(1) ADDITIONAL CABLE TELEVISION OUTLET INSTALLATION

PARAGRAPH 2-3.1B(1) OF THE FTR SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS FOR CONNECTING APPLIANCES AND EQUIPMENT. UNDER THIS PROVISION, WE HAVE ALLOWED THE COSTS OF INSTALLING A "HAM" RADIO ANTENNA. LARRY A. CLENDINEN, 59 COMP.GEN. 600 (1980). SINCE CABLE TELEVISION INSTALLATION IS ANALOGOUS TO "HAM" RADIO ANTENNA INSTALLATION, IT IS ALSO ALLOWABLE. HOWEVER, WE HAVE HELD THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ALLOWANCE WAS, IN PART, TO REIMBURSE COSTS THE EMPLOYEE INCURRED IN RELOCATING APPLIANCES AND EQUIPMENT TO HIS NEW RESIDENCE AND ESTABLISHING THE LEVEL OF SERVICE HE HAD AT HIS OLD RESIDENCE. PRESCOTT A. BERRY, 60 COMP.GEN. 285 (1981). IF MR. PHILLIPS CAN SHOW THAT THIS EXPENSE ESTABLISHES THE SAME LEVEL OF CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE THAT HE HAD IN HIS OLD RESIDENCE, IT MAY BE REIMBURSED.

(2) VETERINARY SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A NEW DOG LICENSE

WE HAVE HELD THAT THE COST OF A NEW DOG LICENSE IS REIMBURSABLE AS A COST INHERENT IN THE RELOCATION OF A PLACE OF RESIDENCE. B-170589, NOVEMBER 13, 1970. HOWEVER, MR. PHILLIPS IS CLAIMING THE COSTS OF A HEALTH EXAMINATION AND SHOTS FOR HIS DOG REQUIRED AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE DOG LICENSE, RATHER THAN THE LICENSE ITSELF. WE CONCLUDE THAT VETERINARY COSTS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF A NEW DOG LICENSE MAY BE REIMBURSED AS PART OF THE COST OF OBTAINING THE NEW DOG LICENSE. WE NOTE THAT THE HEALTH EXAMINATION AND SHOTS WERE REQUIRED AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF HIS DOG'S LICENSE IN HIS NEW STATE OF RESIDENCE. SEE 1950 CODE OF VIRGINIA SEC. 29-213.20 (1979), AND B-178070, APRIL 6, 1973.

(3) NEW TEXTBOOK RENTAL FEES FOR HIS CHILDREN

MR. PHILLIPS CLAIMS REIMBURSEMENT FOR A SCHOOL TEXTBOOK RENTAL FEE OF $5.50 FOR TWO OF HIS CHILDREN. A TEXTBOOK RENTAL FEE WAS PREVIOUSLY PAID FOR MR. PHILLIPS' CHILDREN AT HIS OLD DUTY STATION, WHICH WAS APPARENTLY FORFEITED WHEN HE TRANSFERRED.

WE HAVE HELD THAT FORFEITURE OF TUITION BECAUSE OF A TRANSFER IS NOT THE KIND OF EXPENSE CONSIDERED REIMBURSABLE AS MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES UNDER PARAGRAPH 2-3.1B OF THE FTR. ZERA B. TAYLOR, B-201172, DECEMBER 15, 1981, 61 COMP.GEN. (1981). WE BELIEVE THAT TEXTBOOK RENTAL CHARGES ARE ANALOGOUS TO TUITION EXPENSES IN THAT THEY ARE NOT THE KIND OF EXPENSE CONSIDERED REIMBURSABLE AS A MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE. THEREFORE, SINCE THERE IS NO EXISTING PROVISION IN THE LAW OR THE APPLICABLE TRAVEL REGULATION WHICH CONTEMPLATES REIMBURSEMENT FOR A TEXTBOOK RENTAL FEE, MR. PHILLIPS' CLAIM FOR SUCH AN EXPENSE IS DENIED.

(4) ISSUANCE OF TRAVELER'S CHECKS

MR. PHILLIPS CLAIMS $1 REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE COST OF OBTAINING TRAVELER'S CHECKS UPON REPORTING FOR DUTY IN WASHINGTON. REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE COST OF TRAVELER'S CHECKS IS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR EMPLOYEES ON OFFICIAL TRAVEL. FTR PARAGRAPH 1-9.1B-1. THUS, THE AMOUNT CLAIMED MAY BE ALLOWED SINCE MR. PHILLIPS WAS ON OFFICIAL TRAVEL AT THE TIME THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED. ALSO, SINCE IT IS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED ELSEWHERE IN THE FTR, IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE ENTITLEMENT. SEE FTR PARAGRAPH 2-3.1C.

(5) THE COMMISSION FOR THE SALE OF A LAWN TRACTOR

MR. PHILLIPS SEEKS REIMBURSEMENT FOR A COMMISSION OF $105 THAT HE PAID TO AN IMPLEMENT DEALER AT HIS OLD PLACE OF RESIDENCE FOR THE SALE OF A LAWN TRACTOR BECAUSE OF HIS TRANSFER. COST ITEMS RELATED TO THE SELLING OF PERSONAL PROPERTY ARE SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED FROM REIMBURSEMENT BY FTR PARAGRAPH 2-3.1C(1). MR. PHILLIPS ASSERTS THAT FTR PARAGRAPH 2-3.1C(1) RELATES ONLY TO DWELLINGS AND MOBILE HOMES AND THAT THE COMMISSION PAID FOR THE SALE OF HIS LAWN TRACTOR IS A COST INHERENT IN THE RELOCATION OF A PLACE OF RESIDENCE, THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF WHICH WAS THE RELOCATION. FTR PARAGRAPH 2-3.1C(1) CONTAINS NO LIMITATION OF ITS APPLICATION TO DWELLINGS OR MOBILE HOMES ONLY. TO THE CONTRARY, IT IS PART OF A PROVISION INTENDED TO PRESCRIBE WHICH COSTS ARE REIMBURSABLE AS MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES IN THE BROAD CONTEXT OF DISCONTINUING A RESIDENCE AT ONE LOCATION AND ESTABLISHING A RESIDENCE AT A NEW LOCATION INCIDENT TO A TRANSFER. FTR PARAGRAPH 2 3.1A.

THE DECISION TO SELL THE LAWN TRACTOR RATHER THAN MOVE IT TO THE NEW PLACE OF RESIDENCE WAS A MATTER OF MR. PHILLIPS' PERSONAL PREFERENCE. SAYS THAT HE SOLD IT IN ORDER NOT TO EXCEED HIS WEIGHT LIMITATION FOR MOVEMENT OF HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS. THUS, FTR PARAGRAPH 2-3.1C(9) IS APPLICABLE HERE. THAT PARAGRAPH PRECLUDES REIMBURSEMENT FOR LOSSES RESULTING FROM THE SALE OF PERSONAL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED PRACTICAL TO MOVE. MR. PHILLIPS ASSERTS THAT HE IS NOT CLAIMING A LOSS, SIMPLY THE COST OF MAKING A SALE. HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS THAT HE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED THE ENTIRE SALES PRICE, RATHER THAN THE SALES PRICE MINUS A COMMISSION, HAD HE NOT CHOSEN TO SELL THE LAWN TRACTOR THROUGH THE IMPLEMENT DEALER. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSION CAN BE PROPERLY CATEGORIZED AS A LOSS FOR PURPOSES OF FTR PARAGRAPH 2-3.1C(9).

ACCORDINGLY, MR. PHILLIPS MAY NOT BE REIMBURSED THE COMMISSION HE PAID FOR THE SALE OF HIS LAWN TRACTOR AT HIS OLD PLACE OF RESIDENCE.

(6) TRANSMITTING HIS TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION AND SERVICE AGREEMENT BY EXPRESS MAIL

MR. PHILLIPS SEEKS REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE COST OF TRANSMITTING HIS TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION AND SERVICE AGREEMENT BY EXPRESS MAIL IN ORDER TO OBTAIN AN IMPREST FUND PAYMENT ON ARRIVAL AT HIS NEW DUTY STATION.

WE HAVE HELD THAT POSTAGE COSTS MAY ONLY BE REIMBURSED WHERE THE PURPOSE OF THE USE OF THE POSTAGE WAS FOR AN ITEM THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE. GREGORY J. CAVANAGH, B-183789, JANUARY 23, 1976. WHILE IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE THAT "BUT FOR" THE RELOCATION OF HIS PLACE OF RESIDENCE PURSUANT TO HIS TRANSFER, MR. PHILLIPS WOULD NOT HAVE INCURRED THE EXPENSE FOR TRANSMITTING THESE DOCUMENTS, WE CONSIDER THE NATURE OF THE ITEM CLAIMED TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT WAS CONTEMPLATED AS BEING REIMBURSABLE UNDER THE REGULATIONS. SEE JOHN A. LUND, JR., B-192471, JANUARY 17, 1979.

IT IS NOT INHERENT IN THE RELOCATION OF A TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEE'S PLACE OF RESIDENCE THAT HE OBTAIN AN IMPREST FUND PAYMENT ON ARRIVAL AT HIS NEW STATION. MR. PHILLIPS' TRANSMITTAL OF HIS TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION AND SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR THAT PURPOSE WAS A MATTER OF PERSONAL PREFERENCE AND NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE MOVE. THEREFORE, THIS TYPE OF COST IS NOT COVERED BY PARAGRAPH 2-3.1C. ACCORDINGLY, MR. PHILLIPS MAY NOT BE REIMBURSED THE COST OF TRANSMITTING THESE DOCUMENTS.

(7) THE COST OF TRANSFERRING PAYROLL CHECK PROCEEDS BY WIRE

MR. PHILLIPS SEEKS REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE TELEGRAM COSTS OF TRANSMITTING THE PROCEEDS OF HIS PAYROLL CHECKS ON THREE OCCASIONS BY WIRE FROM HIS SAVINGS ACCOUNT AT HIS NEW DUTY STATION TO HIS BANK AT HIS OLD PLACE OF RESIDENCE. AS TRANSMITTAL COSTS, TELEGRAM OR WIRE COSTS ARE ANALOGOUS TO POSTAGE COSTS, AND SO WARRANT THE APPLICATION OF THE SAME PRINCIPLES WE APPLIED ABOVE TO POSTAGE COSTS. THEREFORE, TELEGRAM COSTS MAY ONLY BE REIMBURSED WHERE THE PURPOSE OF THE TELEGRAM WAS FOR AN ITEM THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE. WE CONCLUDE THIS WAS A MATTER OF MR. PHILLIPS' PERSONAL PREFERENCE AND NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE MOVE. THEREFORE, REIMBURSEMENT IS PRECLUDED BY FTR PARAGRAPH 2-3.1C. MR. PHILLIPS' CLAIM FOR TEMPORARY STORAGE AND CERTAIN MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES MAY BE PARTIALLY REIMBURSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS DECISION.