B-232489.2, Feb 8, 1990
Highlights
Is affirmed. Pfaff's residence was Chicago. His maximum reimbursement is limited by implementing regulations to the cost of travel and transportation to Chicago under the Federal Travel Regulations. Such regulations are mandatory. The burden of proof is on a claimant to establish the liability of the United States. Pfaff's claim is denied. He is advised that.
B-232489.2, Feb 8, 1990
Relocation - Overseas personnel - Return travel - Eligibility DIGEST: On reconsideration, our prior decision limiting reimbursement of an employee's travel and transportation expenses to the constructive cost of returning to his residence, rather than reimbursing him for the actual costs he incurred in returning to another location, is affirmed.
Neil G. Pfaff:
Mr. Neil G. Pfaff, a former employee of the Defense Investigative Service, requests reconsideration of our decision Neil G. Pfaff, B-232489, Aug. 4, 1989, which allowed him reimbursement on a constructive basis of certain travel and transportation expenses he incurred when he left Hawaii to return to the United States. Mr. Pfaff contends that he should be reimbursed for his actual expenses.
As discussed in our decision, Mr. Pfaff's residence was Chicago, Illinois, and he returned to Chicora, Pennsylvania. Therefore, his maximum reimbursement is limited by implementing regulations to the cost of travel and transportation to Chicago under the Federal Travel Regulations, para. 2-1.5g(4) (Supp. 1, Sept. 28, 1981) incorp. by ref., 41 C.F.R. Sec. 101-7.003 (1985). Such regulations are mandatory. Dominic D. D'Abate, 63 Comp.Gen. 2 (1983). Therefore, we sustain our decision of August 4, 1989.
Mr. Pfaff has also requested that he be reimbursed for vacation leave travel under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5728 (1982). However, Mr. Pfaff has not provided any evidence which would indicate that he performed such travel so as to entitle him to reimbursement. The burden of proof is on a claimant to establish the liability of the United States, and the claimants' right to payment. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 31.7 (1989). Accordingly, in the absence of evidence of government liability, Mr. Pfaff's claim is denied.
In response to Mr. Pfaff's inquiry concerning his appeal rights, he is advised that, if he still wishes to pursue this matter, he may file suit in the appropriate court and within the time limitations provided for in 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1346(a)(2), 1491, 2401, and 2501 (1982).