[Request for Review of Settlement Concerning Travel, Transportation, and Relocation Entitlements]

A review of a claims group settlement was requested concerning the travel, transportation, and relocation expense entitlements of a Veterans Administration employee incident to a permanent transfer. The employee's travel authorization provided for the employee's family's travel via two privately owned vehicles, travel time, an advance househunting trip, transportation of household goods, and temporary quarters subsistence expenses. The employee made an unaccompanied househunting trip, remained at his new location, and reported for duty. Thereafter, he returned to his old residence to assist in his family's move. His two vehicles were driven from the old duty station to another location to which he and his family flew and from where they drove the vehicles to the new station. The employee: (1) questioned a GAO and agency concurrence in the disallowance of his return air fare to his old residence because it was not a return leg of his househunting trip; (2) contended that an incorrect rate of reimbursement was used for per diem while househunting; and (3)did not agree with the agency's collection of an overpayment made to him on his temporary subsistence allowance claim. The agency questioned a Claims Group determination that mileage for both vehicles should be used in the travel reconstruction. GAO disallowed the return air fair to the old residence because the employee had exhausted his personal change of station travel entitlement. GAO found that househunting per diem for the period which preceded his reporting for duty could be paid, but that regulations limit per diem for househunting trips to the per diem rate, not the actual subsistence rate. Regulations also provide that subsistence expenses incurred incident to a permanent change of station may be not be paid for travel time between the old and new duty station, and GAO has held that the period allowed runs concurrently for all family members. GAO had determined that mileage for both vehicles should be used because of the size of the family and vehicles involved. However, the transportation of the privately owned vehicles was not authorized. Since the employee had already completed his travel to his new duty station, reimbursement rights were limited to one vehicle on a constructive cost basis. Accordingly, the claim may be settled in accordance with this reconsideration decision.