B-30102, NOVEMBER 17, 1942, 22 COMP. GEN. 478

B-30102: Nov 17, 1942

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

REGULATIONS PROMULGATED THEREUNDER" ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR REIMBURSING AN EMPLOYEE FOR THE COST OF PACKING AND CRATING HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WHICH ARE NOT TRANSPORTED TO HIS NEW STATION BUT WHICH. ARE SENT TO STORAGE AT THE OLD STATION. REGULATIONS PROMULGATED THEREUNDER" ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR REIMBURSING AN EMPLOYEE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF HIS HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS TO ANY POINT OTHER THAN HIS NEW STATION. 1942: I HAVE YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 31. AS FOLLOWS: TRANSMITTED HEREWITH ARE THE FILES ON THE CLAIMS OF CHARLES S. THESE LETTERS ALLOCATED FUNDS FROM THE EMERGENCY FUNDS OF THE PRESIDENT WHICH WERE APPROPRIATED BY THE INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATION ACT OF 1942 ( ACT OF APRIL 5. I WAS DIRECTED BY OUR COMMISSION'S CHAIRMAN TO PROCEED "ON OR ABOUT MARCH 16 TO PHILADELPHIA.

B-30102, NOVEMBER 17, 1942, 22 COMP. GEN. 478

HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS - PACKING, CRATING, AND TRANSPORTATION - "DECENTRALIZED" EMPLOYEES FUNDS ALLOTTED FROM THE " EMERGENCY FUND FOR THE PRESIDENT" FOR THE TRANSFER OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS OF "DECENTRALIZED" EMPLOYEES "AS PROVIDED BY THE ACT OF OCTOBER 10, 1940, AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED THEREUNDER" ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR REIMBURSING AN EMPLOYEE FOR THE COST OF PACKING AND CRATING HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WHICH ARE NOT TRANSPORTED TO HIS NEW STATION BUT WHICH, INSTEAD, ARE SENT TO STORAGE AT THE OLD STATION, IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE ALLOCATION LETTERS, IN THE SAID ACT OF OCTOBER 10, 1940, OR IN THE REGULATIONS, AUTHORIZING SUCH REIMBURSEMENT. FUNDS ALLOTTED FROM THE " EMERGENCY FUND FOR THE PRESIDENT" FOR THE TRANSFER OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS OF "DECENTRALIZED" EMPLOYEES "AS PROVIDED BY THE ACT OF OCTOBER 10, 1940, AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED THEREUNDER" ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR REIMBURSING AN EMPLOYEE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF HIS HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS TO ANY POINT OTHER THAN HIS NEW STATION, IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE ALLOCATION LETTERS, IN THE SAID ACT OF OCTOBER 10, 1940, OR IN THE REGULATIONS, AUTHORIZING SUCH REIMBURSEMENT.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL WARREN TO THE FEDERAL WORKS ADMINISTRATOR, NOVEMBER 17, 1942:

I HAVE YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 31, 1942, AS FOLLOWS:

TRANSMITTED HEREWITH ARE THE FILES ON THE CLAIMS OF CHARLES S. LOBINGIER, SENIOR TRIAL EXAMINER OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, AND ALFRED G. STEIGNER, BUREAU OF OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE, SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD, CONCERNING REQUESTS FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE DECENTRALIZATION PROGRAM.

AS YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ADMINISTRATION OF THIS AGENCY CONDUCTS THIS PROGRAM BY VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN CERTAIN LETTERS OF THE PRESIDENT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. (LETTER OF DECEMBER 23, 1941, AS AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTED BY THE LETTERS OF FEBRUARY 6, 1942 AND APRIL 18, 1942.) THESE LETTERS ALLOCATED FUNDS FROM THE EMERGENCY FUNDS OF THE PRESIDENT WHICH WERE APPROPRIATED BY THE INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATION ACT OF 1942 ( ACT OF APRIL 5, 1941 (55 STAT. 92) AND THE THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE APPROPRIATION ACT OF 1942. ( ACT OF DECEMBER 17, 1941 (55 STAT. 810) (

THE LETTER OF DECEMBER 23, 1941 STATES "THE FUNDS HEREBY ALLOCATED SHALL BE AVAILABLE * * * FOR ALL EXPENSES OF THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ADMINISTRATION, FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY, IN CARRYING OUT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED FUNCTIONS, INCLUDING * * * TRANSFER OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS OF TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEES AS PROVIDED BY THE ACT OF OCTOBER 10, 1940, AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED THEREUNDER, AND THE OPERATION OF A SERVICE TO ASSIST TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEES IN OBTAINING SUITABLE HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS, AND IN DISPOSING OF THEIR REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AND ENVIRONS.'

THE ACT ( ACT OF OCTOBER 10, 1940 (54 STAT. 1105) ( MENTIONED IN THE ABOVE QUOTATION OF THE REGULATIONS ( EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8588, AS AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9122) AND THE REGULATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT PROMULGATED THEREUNDER MAKE PROVISION FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES INVOLVED IN PACKING, CRATING, DRAYAGE AND TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS OF CIVILIAN OFFICERS.

THE FOLLOWING LETTER FROM MR. LOBINGIER STATES THE FACTS CONCERNING HIS CLAIM:

" SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

PHILADELPHIA, PA., SEPTEMBER 25, 1942. " GENERAL PHILIP B. FLEMING ADMINISTRATOR FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C.

RE: REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES INCIDENT TO DECENTRALIZATION DEAR GENERAL FLEMING:

" I AM NOW IN MY NINTH YEAR AS SENIOR TRIAL EXAMINER OF THE ABOVE NAMED COMMISSION, HAVING PREVIOUSLY SERVED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE IN THE PHILIPPINES (10 YEARS), AND AS JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA (10 YEARS), AND IN VARIOUS OTHER POSITIONS--- IN ALL NEARLY THIRTY YEARS--- DURING WHICH MY WIFE AND I ACCUMULATED A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND FURNITURE, TO HOUSE WHICH, WHEN WE CAME TO WASHINGTON, WE RENTED ONE OF THE LARGE APARTMENTS IN THE TORONTO.

"ON MARCH 5, 1942, I WAS DIRECTED BY OUR COMMISSION'S CHAIRMAN TO PROCEED "ON OR ABOUT MARCH 16 TO PHILADELPHIA," AS PART OF THE DECENTRALIZATION PROCESS. AS I COULD NOT LEAVE IN WASHINGTON MY WIFE, WHO IS IN DELICATE HEALTH, I SOUGHT FIRST TO SUBLEASE THE APARTMENT FURNISHED; BUT THE LANDLORD REFUSED CONSENT. IT THEN BECAME NECESSARY FOR ME TO LOOK FOR AN APARTMENT IN PHILADELPHIA, LARGE ENOUGH TO HOUSE MY EFFECTS AND STILL WITHIN MY MEANS. LEARNING FROM OTHERS WHO HAD PRECEDED ME THERE THAT RENTS WERE HIGH AND THAT A LONG SEARCH WOULD PROBABLY BE NECESSARY, I CONCLUDED AND PROCEEDED TO STORE IN WASHINGTON ALL MY EFFECTS (EXCEPT THOSE INDISPENSABLE FOR PERSONAL USE) PENDING SUCH A SEARCH.

" "PACKING, CRATING AND DRAYAGE," HOWEVER, HAD TO BE DONE AT ONCE AND I CONFERRED WITH CHIEF JAMES J. RIORDAN OF OUR COMMISSION'S BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING SECTION, AS TO PROCEDURE. SINCE HE WAS THEN IN THE THROES OF DIRECTING THE TRANSFER OF A STAFF OF OVER 900, HE CONFERRED WITH RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS OF THE BUDGET BUREAU AND, I UNDERSTAND OF YOUR AGENCY, WHO, HE SAID AUTHORIZED AN ARRANGEMENT FOR THE THREE ITEMS ABOVE MENTIONED, WITH A TRANSFER COMPANY WHICH WOULD OFFER THE BEST TERMS, AND TO RELIEVE HIM I UNDERTOOK THE WORK OF CONTACTING THE VARIOUS LOCAL COMPANIES ENGAGED IN THAT BUSINESS. I FOUND THE MERCHANTS' TRANSFER AND STORAGE COMPANY MAKING THE LOWEST OFFER AND GAVE IT THE JOB. ITS PACKERS, CRATERS AND VANS WERE AT WORK FOR THREE DAYS AND THE COMPANY'S BILL FOR THE THREE ITEMS ABOVE MENTIONED WAS $127.50, WHICH WAS FAR BELOW THE ESTIMATE OF ANY OTHER COMPANY WHICH I HAD CONSULTED. I TOLD THE COMPANY MANAGER TO SEND THE BILL TO YOUR AGENCY AND LEARNED LATER THAT PAYMENT HAD BEEN REFUSED. I THEN TOOK IT UP BY CORRESPONDENCE, AT FIRST THROUGH MR. RIORDAN, AND THEN INDIVIDUALLY, AND ALTHOUGH MORE THAN SIX MONTHS HAVE NOW PASSED SINCE THE EXPENSE WAS INCURRED, I HAVE RECEIVED NO REIMBURSEMENT. AND AS I COULD NOT ASK THE COMPANY TO WAIT INDEFINITELY WHILE I WAS HOUSE HUNTING IN PHILADELPHIA, I PAID THE BILL AND HOLD ITS RECEIPT.

"MEANWHILE, MY WIFE AND I PROCEEDED ON MARCH 16 TO PHILADELPHIA, WHICH HAS EVER SINCE BEEN MY PERMANENT OFFICIAL STATION AND I HAVE CONTINUED MY SEARCH FOR A SUITABLE APARTMENT WITHIN MY MEANS, TO HOUSE THE GOODS. AS I HAD NOT FOUND ONE AT THE END OF SIX MONTHS FROM "THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF TRANSFER," OUR COMMISSION'S CHAIRMAN, ACTING UNDER SEC. 12 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 9122, EXTENDED TO MARCH 16, 1944, THE TIME FOR MYSELF AND OTHERS OF THE STAFF TO MOVE THEIR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS TO PHILADELPHIA. BY SUCH EXTENSION, THE PRESIDENT EVIDENTLY INTENDED TO EASE THE BURDEN OF THOSE WHO, LIKE MYSELF, ARE LOOKING FOR REASONABLY PRICED HOUSES IN PHILADELPHIA. HE COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED TO ADD ANOTHER BURDEN BY REQUIRING THEM TO WAIT TWO FULL YEARS FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES INCIDENT TO DECENTRALIZATION, UNDER A STATUTE WHICH PROVIDES FOR "... EXPENSES WHICH NOW OR HEREAFTER MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO BE PAID FROM GOVERNMENT FUNDS FOR THE PACKING, CRATING, DRAYAGE, AND TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS OF CIVILIAN OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF ANY OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS OR ESTABLISHMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES WHEN TRANSFERRED FROM ONE OFFICIAL STATION TO ANOTHER FOR PERMANENT DUTY" ETC. ( ITALICS MINE.) ( ACT OF OCTOBER 10, 1942, U.S. STAT., 76TH CONGRESS, PUBLIC 839)

"UNDER A SIMILAR STATUTE, ALL OF THESE ITEMS WERE ALLOWED A TREASURY DISBURSING CLERK ALTHOUGH THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY HAD PRESCRIBED NO REGULATIONS THEREFOR. (3 C.G. 888)

"ANOTHER CASE, QUITE SIMILAR TO THIS IN PRINCIPLE, IS REPORTED IN 1 C.G. 686, WHERE A NAVAL OFFICER WAS REIMBURSED FOR "PACKING, CRATING AND HAULING HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS" PURSUANT TO ORDERS FOR A CHANGE OF STATION, ALTHOUGH SUCH ORDERS WERE CANCELLED BEFORE HE HAD BEEN DETACHED FROM HIS EXISTING STATION. IN REVERSING DISALLOWANCE, COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL SAID:

" "THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ORDERS TO INDICATE THAT SUCH SERVICES SHOULD NOT BE OBTAINED UNTIL THE DETACHMENT HAD ACTUALLY TAKEN PLACE.'

"HERE THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDER OF EXTENSION WAS, IN EFFECT, A MODIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL LIMIT OF REMOVAL TO SIX MONTHS AND "THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ORDERS (OR STATUTE) TO INDICATE THAT SUCH SERVICES ("PACKING, CRATING AND HAULING") SHOULD NOT BE OBTAINED UNTIL THE DETACHMENT (HERE EXPIRATION OF TWO YEARS) HAD ACTUALLY TAKEN PLACE," NOR THAT ALL FOUR STEPS IN THE DECENTRALIZATION PROCESS MUST BE TAKEN BEFORE REIMBURSEMENT FOR ANY MAY BE MADE. THAT INTERPRETATION SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN READ INTO THE LAW AND TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH ITS PURPOSE AND INTENT.

"IN 5 C.G. 229 ( OCTOBER 1925) THE CLAIMANT WAS REIMBURSED FOR "DRAYAGE," ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO OTHER TRANSPORTATION. THAT DECISION APPEARS TO QUALIFY (IF IT DOES NOT OVERRULE) THE DECISION OF MARCH 23, 1922, REJECTING A CLAIM AS NOT "INCIDENT TO PACKING AND DRAYING," WHICH PHRASE APPEARED IN THE STATUTE THERE CONSTRUED (2 C.G. 598-9). NO SUCH LANGUAGE IS USED IN THE ACT OF OCT. 10, 1940; NEVERTHELESS, THE "PACKING, CRATING AND DRAYAGE" HERE CAUSED AND PAID FOR WERE ALL PREPARATORY, AND HENCE INCIDENTAL, TO TRANSPORTATION.

"MY ATTENTION HAS BEEN CALLED TO THE FIRST PROVISO OF THE ACT OF 1940 ABOVE QUOTED, EXCLUDING REIMBURSEMENT "WHERE THE TRANSFER IS MADE AT THE REQUEST, AND PRIMARILY FOR THE CONVENIENCE OR BENEFIT OF, THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE.' IT SHOULD HARDLY BE NECESSARY TO SAY THAT DECENTRALIZATION WAS NEITHER A "CONVENIENCE OR BENEFIT" TO ME OR ANY OTHER S.E.C. OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE. THE MERE ANNOUNCEMENT THEREOF BROUGHT ONLY DISMAY AND CONSTERNATION TO PRACTICALLY THE ENTIRE STAFF FROM THE COMMISSIONERS DOWN. TO ME IT MEANT THE BREAKING UP OF MY HOME AND THE INTERRUPTION OF NORMAL FAMILY LIFE FOR AT LEAST A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD. NOT EVEN THE REIMBURSEMENT NOW ASKED WOULD BEGIN TO COMPENSATE FOR THE NERVOUS STRAIN AND EXCITEMENT INCIDENT TO THE MERE PROCESS OF "PACKING, CRATING OR DRAYAGE.'

"THANKS TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 9122, I NOW HAVE UNTIL MARCH 16, 1944, TO FIND A SUITABLE HOME IN PHILADELPHIA, AND I EXPECT AND INTEND TO REMAIN THERE AS LONG AS I AM THERE IN THE SERVICE. BUT MUST I WAIT UNTIL THAT TIME FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES INCURRED UNDER THE ABOVE CITED TATUTE? IF SO, THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER OF EXTENSION WORKS A HARDSHIP AND NOT A BENEFIT. SURELY IT WAS NOT SO INTENDED. BUT UNDER A TECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION THE EXTENSION ITSELF MIGHT BE MADE A PRETEXT FOR DENYING REIMBURSEMENT. (SEE 18 C.G. 408)

"AGAIN, WHILE, AS I HAVE SAID, I HAVE SERVED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS, I HAVE NEVER BEEN IN THE CIVIL SERVICE. MY TENURE IS THEREFORE UNCERTAIN. SUPPOSE I HAVE MY GOODS TRANSFERRED NOW TO PHILADELPHIA (WHERE I HAVE NO PLACE YET TO PUT THEM), AS WAS SUGGESTED BY THE ASSISTANT MANAGER OF THE DECENTRALIZATION SERVICE, AND ON OR BEFORE MARCH 16, 1944 I SHOULD BE SEPARATED FROM THE SERVICE: I WOULD THEN BE BURDENED WITH THE EXPENSE OF TRANSPORTING MY GOODS BACK TO WASHINGTON (OR WHEREVER ELSE I MIGHT HAVE TO GO) WITHOUT EVER BEING ABLE TO USE THEM. SIMILARLY, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE INCURRED THE EXPENSE OF TRANSPORTATION TO PHILADELPHIA (THE LARGEST OF THE FOUR STATUTORY ITEMS) WITH NO BENEFIT TO IT OR TO ME; WHEN THAT EXPENSE COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED BY REIMBURSEMENT NOW.

" I ASK ONLY A REASONABLE, COMMON SENSE VIEW OF THE QUESTION HERE PRESENTED, KEEPING IN MIND THE CONTROLLING FACTOR IN CONSTRUING THE STATUTE OF 1940, VIZ. THE PLAIN INTENT OF CONGRESS TO PROTECT THE "OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES" AGAINST LOSS FROM DECENTRALIZATION. I SUBMIT THAT SUCH AN INTERPRETATION ENTITLED ME TO REIMBURSEMENT NOW FOR THE $127.50 WHICH I HAVE PAID FOR "PACKING, CRATING AND DRAYAGE.'

VERY TRULY YOURS,

(SIGNED) CHARLES S. LOBINGIER,

CHARLES S. LOBINGIER,

SENIOR TRIAL EXAMINER.'

THE FOLLOWING LETTER FROM MR. STEIGNER STATES THE FACTS CONCERNING HIS CLAIM:

" HARAHAN SHELL GASOLINE SERVICE STATION,

AUGUST J. HAGELBERGER,

SHELL PRODUCTS - GREASING - CRANKCASE DRAINS,

HARAHAN, LOUISIANA, 9-17-42. " OFFICE OF DECENTRALIZATION SERVICE, N. INTERIOR BLDG., WASHINGTON, D.C.

ATTENTION: MR. W. C. CLARK DEAR SIR:

"ON OR ABOUT AUGUST 21ST 1942, I PUT 6 CARTONS OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS INTO MY CAR AND TRANSPORTED THEM OUT GEORGIA AVE., TO THE DEPOT AT SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND. THESE 6 CARTONS WERE GIVEN TO THE RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY AND UPON THE PAYMENT OF $7.36 THE ATTACHED RECEIPT WAS ISSUED. SEVERAL DAYS LATER THE THINGS (BOXES) ARRIVED AT LOUISVILLE, KY., AND DELIVERED TO MY MOTHER'S HOME.

"INASMUCH AS I DID NOT HAVE ROOM IN MY CAR TO BRING THESE CARTONS FULL OF MY BELONGINGS TO NEW ORLEANS AND BECAUSE I DID NOT KNOW WHAT KIND OF A ROOM I WOULD FIND, AND BECAUSE I ONLY ACCOMMODATED THE GOVERNMENT BY COMING DOWN HERE, AS I HAVE A DRAFT CLASSIFICATION OF 1 A, I DECIDED TO LEAVE THEM IN LOUISVILLE, WHERE I WOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR STORAGE INSTEAD OF BRINGING OR RATHER SHIPPING THEM TO NEW ORLEANS, LA.

"WITH THE UNCERTAINTY OF BEING DRAFTED POSSIBLY TOMORROW I WAS RELUCTANT TO EVEN COME TO NEW ORLEANS AS IT ENTAILED EXPENSES WHICH I WOULD NEVER BE REIMBURSED FOR, I BEG THAT YOU CONSIDER THE PAYMENT OF THIS $7.36 AS THIS IS ALL THE BAGGAGE COSTS I EVER ASKED THE GOVERNMENT FOR IN THE PAST 16 1/2 YEARS. WHEN I WAS TRANSFERRED TO LEXINGTON, KY., ON 5/1/35, IT COST THE GOVERNMENT ABOUT $1.25 THAT OCCURRED WHILE I WAS EMPLOYED BY THE UNITED STATES VETERANS BUREAU.

"WITH DUE COURTESY AND RESPECT TO YOU, I AM

VERY TRULY YOURS,

(SIGNED) ALFRED G. STEIGNER,

ALFRED G. STEIGNER, AREA OFFICE, BUREAU OF OLD AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE, NEW ORLEANS, LA.' IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LETTERS, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO RENDER DECISIONS ON THE FOLLOWING THREE QUESTIONS:

(1) IS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR PACKING, CRATING, AND DRAYAGE EXPENSES INCURRED AS A RESULT OF A DECENTRALIZATION ORDER EVEN THOUGH THE GOODS ARE NEVER ACTUALLY TRANSPORTED TO THE NEW OFFICIAL STATION;

(2) ASSUMING THAT THE GOODS WILL EVENTUALLY BE MOVED TO THE NEW OFFICIAL STATION, MAY AN EMPLOYEE BE REIMBURSED FOR PACKING, CRATING, AND DRAYAGE PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL TRANSPORTATION OF THE GOODS TO THE NEW OFFICIAL STATION;

(3) IS AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS ORDERED TO A NEW OFFICIAL STATION AS A RESULT OF THE DECENTRALIZATION PROGRAM ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR PACKING, CRATING, DRAYAGE AND TRANSPORTATION WHERE THE GOODS ARE TRANSPORTED TO AN INTERMEDIATE POINT MORE CONVENIENT TO THE EMPLOYEE THAN THE NEW OFFICIAL STATION AT A COST NOT EXCEEDING THE COST OF PACKING, CRATING, DRAYAGE, AND TRANSPORTATION TO THE NEW OFFICIAL STATION.

IT IS REQUESTED THAT, UPON YOUR DETERMINATION OF THIS MATTER, ALL PAPERS SUBMITTED HEREWITH BE RETURNED TO THIS AGENCY.'

THE PRESIDENT'S ALLOCATION LETTER, NO. 42-48, DATED DECEMBER 23, 1941, READS, IN PERTINENT PART, AS FOLLOWS:

BY VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN ME BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE APPROPRIATION ENTITLED " EMERGENCY FUND FOR THE PRESIDENT" CONTAINED IN THE INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATION ACT, 1942, APPROVED APRIL 5, 1941, I HEREBY ALLOCATE FROM THE SUM OF $100,000,000 PROVIDED BY SAID APPROPRIATION AS FOLLOWS:

TO AMOUNT PUBLIC BUILDINGS ADMINISTRATION, FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY--- $2,000,000 TO BE EXPENDED BY SAID PUBLIC BUILDINGS ADMINISTRATION, FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY, IN CONNECTION WITH EMERGENCIES AFFECTING THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE, FOR THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN FEDERAL AGENCIES TO LOCATIONS OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

THE FUNDS HEREBY ALLOCATED SHALL BE AVAILABLE (WITHOUT REGARD TO SECTION 3709 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, SECTIONS 278A AND 304C OF TITLE 40 OF THE U.S.C. AS AMENDED, OR ANY RULES OR REGULATIONS RELATING TO FORMS OF CONTRACT) FOR ALL EXPENSES OF THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ADMINISTRATION, FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY, IN CARRYING OUT THE ABOVE- DESCRIBED FUNCTIONS, INCLUDING * * * TRANSFER OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS OF TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEES AS PROVIDED BY THE ACT OF OCTOBER 10, 1940, AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED THEREUNDER; AND THE OPERATION OF A SERVICE TO ASSIST TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEES IN OBTAINING SUITABLE HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS, AND IN DISPOSING OF THEIR REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS IN WASHINGTON, D.C. AND ENVIRONS. ( ITALICS SUPPLIED.)

THE PRESIDENT'S ALLOCATION LETTER, NO. 42-69, DATED FEBRUARY 6, 1942 (AMENDING THE ONE ABOVE-QUOTED), GRANTS ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY REGARDING THE USE OF THE ALLOTTED FUNDS, IN TERMS, AS FOLLOWS:

IN ADDITION TO THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH SAID $2,000,000 IS AVAILABLE AS SPECIFIED IN THE LETTER OF ALLOCATION, SAID FUNDS SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ADMINISTRATION TO TRANSPORT THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS OF TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES OF DECENTRALIZED AGENCIES AND OF EMPLOYEES WHO, AT THEIR OWN REQUEST AND PRIMARILY FOR THEIR OWN CONVENIENCE OR BENEFIT, HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED OR ARE IN PROCESS OF BEING TRANSFERRED TO A DECENTRALIZED AGENCY AS OF THE DATE ITS REMOVAL FROM WASHINGTON IS BEGUN.

BY ALLOCATION LETTER, NO. 42/3-8, DATED APRIL 18, 1942, THE PRESIDENT ALLOTTED AN ADDITIONAL $2,725,000, TO THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ADMINISTRATION FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY, FOR THE FOLLOWING STATED PURPOSES:

THE FUNDS HEREBY ALLOCATED SHALL BE ADDITIONAL TO THE FUNDS ALLOCATED TO SUCH AGENCY BY LETTER DATED DECEMBER 23, 1941 ( NO. 42 48), AND SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR THE OBJECTS AND PURPOSES AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN SUCH LETTER, AS AMENDED BY LETTER OF ALLOCATION DATED FEBRUARY 6, 1942 ( NO. 42-69), EXCEPT THAT, IN THE TRANSFER OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS OF DECENTRALIZED EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE DEPENDENTS LIVING WITH THEM, THE MAXIMUM WEIGHT ALLOWANCES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:

CHART

POUNDS SHIPMENT INVOLVING TRANSPORTATION BY VESSEL OVER ALL OR

PART OF ROUTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 14,000 SHIPMENT BY RAIL ONLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,750 SHIPMENT BY MOTOR FREIGHT ONLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,000

SAID FUNDS SHALL ALSO BE AVAILABLE FOR THE STORAGE OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS OF DECENTRALIZED EMPLOYEES AT THE NEW LOCATION FOR NOT TO EXCEED 30 DAYS.

IN DECISION OF APRIL 8, 1942, 21 COMP. GEN. 915, 917, WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLOTMENT LETTER FIRST ABOVE-QUOTED, IT WAS STATED:

THE ONLY AUTHORITY OF LAW FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPARTMENTAL SERVICES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THEIR PERSONNEL FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., IS THAT CONTAINED IN THE APPROPRIATION UNDER THE TITLE " EMERGENCY FUNDS FOR THE PRESIDENT" WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLY FOR "ALL NECESSARY EXPENDITURES * * * FOR ANY PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE CONGRESS HAS PREVIOUSLY MADE APPROPRIATION OR AUTHORIZATION.' ALSO, UNDER THE TERMS OF SAID APPROPRIATION, NO STATUTORY PROVISION RELATIVE TO THE EXPENDITURE OF APPROPRIATED MONEYS IS TO BE REGARDED AS WAIVED BY THE PRESIDENT EXCEPT SUCH AS MAY BE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE LETTER OF ALLOCATION. THE PRESIDENT HAS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED IN HIS LETTER OF ALLOCATION HERE APPLICABLE THAT THE "TRANSFER OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS OF TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEES" SUBJECT TO DECENTRALIZATION SHALL BE "AS PROVIDED BY THE ACT OF OCTOBER 10, 1940, AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED THEREUNDER.'

NOTWITHSTANDING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE CLAIMANTS IN THE CASES HERE PRESENTED, THE ACT OF OCTOBER 10, 1940, 54 STAT. 1105, AND THE PRESIDENT'S REGULATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER (CONTAINED IN EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8588 OF NOVEMBER 7, 1940, AS AMENDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9122 OF APRIL 6, 1942, AND EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9223 OF AUGUST 15, 1942) HAVE NOT BEEN, AND MAY NOT BE, INTERPRETED (1) AS AUTHORIZING REIMBURSEMENT FOR PACKING AND CRATING OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS WHICH ARE NOT TRANSPORTED TO THE NEW STATION OF AN EMPLOYEE, BUT WHICH, INSTEAD, ARE SENT TO STORAGE AT THE EMPLOYEE'S LAST STATION, OR (2) AS AUTHORIZING REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION COSTS OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS WHICH ARE TRANSPORTED FOR STORAGE OR USE AT AN INTERMEDIATE POINT AND WHICH ARE NOT TRANSPORTED TO THE NEW STATION OF THE EMPLOYEE.

THE DECISIONS OF THIS OFFICE CITED BY JUDGE LOBINGIER DO NOT SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS. IN 3 COMP. GEN. 888, THE EXPENSES ALLOWED TO COVER PACKING, CRATING, FREIGHT, AND DRAYAGE IN THE TRANSFER OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS OF CUSTOMS' EMPLOYEES UNDER ANOTHER STATUTE WERE IN CONNECTION WITH THE MOVEMENT OF THE GOODS TO THE NEW STATION. IN 1 COMP. GEN. 686, THERE WAS INVOLVED THE CASE OF A NAVAL OFFICER WHO HAD HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS PACKED, CRATED, AND TRANSPORTED ON SEPTEMBER 17, 1921, IN ANTICIPATION OF HIS BEING RELIEVED FROM DUTY AT HIS STATION BY ORDERS DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 1921, ASSIGNING HIM TO A NEW STATION, BUT WHICH ORDERS WERE REVOKED BY TELEGRAM DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 1921, AFTER THE GOODS HAD BEEN SHIPPED. IN 5 COMP. GEN. 229, THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS WERE ALREADY AT THE NEW STATION OF THE EMPLOYEE AND REIMBURSEMENT WAS AUTHORIZED FOR THE COST OF DRAYAGE FROM THE PLACE OF STORAGE AT HIS NEW STATION TO HIS RESIDENCE,"PROVIDED THE COST THEREOF DOES NOT EXCEED THE COST OF PACKING, CRATING, AND TRANSPORTATION FROM THE OLD TO THE NEW STATION.'

REFERRING TO YOUR QUESTIONS (1) AND (2), THE PACKING AND CRATING OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS IS AUTHORIZED ONLY WHEN REQUIRED AS AN INCIDENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS. USUALLY, PACKING AND CRATING ARE NOT REQUIRED WHEN TRANSPORTATION IS BY MOTOR VAN BUT ARE REQUIRED ONLY WHEN SHIPPED BY RAIL OR WATER. SECTION 5 OF THE REGULATIONS ( EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9122) REQUIRES THAT THE "SHIPMENT SHALL BE BY THE MOST ECONOMICAL MEANS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE COST OF PACKING, CRATING, DRAYAGE, UNPACKING AND UNCRATING.' UNLESS AND UNTIL THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS ARE READY FOR SHIPMENT TO THE NEW STATION THERE CAN BE NO PROPER COMPARISON OF THE RELATIVE COST OF TRANSPORTATION BY WATER, RAIL, OR VAN TO DETERMINE THE MOST ECONOMICAL MEANS OR WHETHER PACKING AND CRATING WILL BE NECESSARY IN ANY EVENT. ACCORDINGLY, IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT THERE IS NO AUTHORITY EITHER IN THE PRESIDENT'S ALLOTMENT LETTERS, SUPRA, OR IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTROLLING STATUTE OF 1940 AND REGULATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT THERETO FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF PACKING AND CRATING HOUSEHOLD GOODS WHICH ARE NOT TRANSPORTED TO THE NEW STATION OF THE EMPLOYEE, BUT WHICH ARE SENT TO STORAGE AT THE OLD STATION OF THE EMPLOYEE. QUESTIONS (1) AND (2) ARE ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE.

REFERRING TO QUESTION (3) WHILE SECTION 11 OF THE REGULATIONS ( EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9122), AUTHORIZES TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS FROM A POINT OTHER THAN THE LAST OFFICIAL STATION OF AN EMPLOYEE, PROVIDED THE COST DOES NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT IT WOULD HAVE COST TO TRANSPORT THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS FROM THE LAST OFFICIAL STATION TO THE NEW, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY UNDER THE REGULATIONS OR THE LAW OR THE PRESIDENT'S ALLOCATION LETTERS, AUTHORIZING REIMBURSEMENT TO ANY POINT OTHER THAN THE NEW STATION OF THE EMPLOYEE. COMPARE 13 COMP. GEN. 355. ACCORDINGLY, QUESTION (3) IS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE.

THE ACTION OF THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ADMINISTRATION IN DENYING THE CLAIMS PRESENTED WAS CORRECT.

AS REQUESTED, ALL PAPERS FORWARDED WITH YOUR LETTER ARE RETURNED HEREWITH.