B-52368, OCTOBER 4, 1945, 25 COMP. GEN. 325

B-52368: Oct 4, 1945

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

WHILE MEMBERS OF AN EMPLOYEE'S HOUSEHOLD ORDINARILY ARE THOSE DEPENDENT UPON AND RESIDING WITH THE EMPLOYEE. WHO ARE INCLUDED IN THE TERM "IMMEDIATE FAMILY" AS DEFINED IN SECTION 1. ARE TEMPORARILY ABSENT FROM HOME ATTENDING SCHOOL. AT THE TIME THE EMPLOYEE WAS TRANSFERRED TO A NEW PERMANENT STATION. HAS NO EFFECT TO REMOVE SUCH INDIVIDUALS FROM CONSIDERATION AS MEMBERS OF THE EMPLOYEE'S IMMEDIATE FAMILY FOR WHOM EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION FOR TRAVEL TO THE NEW STATION ARE PROVIDED FOR BY SAID SECTION 201 (A). IN THE CASE OF MEMBERS OF AN EMPLOYEE'S IMMEDIATE FAMILY WHO EITHER HAVE NEVER JOINED HIM AT HIS DUTY STATION OR ARE TEMPORARILY ABSENT THEREFROM AT THE TIME HE IS PERMANENTLY TRANSFERRED TO A NEW STATION.

B-52368, OCTOBER 4, 1945, 25 COMP. GEN. 325

TRANSPORTATION - DEPENDENTS - TRANSFERRED CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 201 (A) OF THE INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATION ACT, 1946, AND THE EXECUTIVE REGULATIONS THEREUNDER, THE EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION OF EMPLOYEES' FAMILIES UPON A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION MAY BE AUTHORIZED ON AN ACTUAL EXPENSE BASIS FOR TRAVEL BY PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE NOT TO EXCEED THE COST BY COMMON CARRIER; BUT COMMUTATION OF SUCH EXPENSE ON A MILEAGE BASIS MAY NOT BE AUTHORIZED FOR SUCH TRAVEL BY THE FAMILIES SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE EMPLOYEE HIMSELF. WHILE MEMBERS OF AN EMPLOYEE'S HOUSEHOLD ORDINARILY ARE THOSE DEPENDENT UPON AND RESIDING WITH THE EMPLOYEE, THE FACT THAT MEMBERS, WHO ARE INCLUDED IN THE TERM "IMMEDIATE FAMILY" AS DEFINED IN SECTION 1, PART II, OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9587, ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 201 (A) OF THE INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATION ACT, 1946, ARE TEMPORARILY ABSENT FROM HOME ATTENDING SCHOOL, VISITING, ETC., AT THE TIME THE EMPLOYEE WAS TRANSFERRED TO A NEW PERMANENT STATION, HAS NO EFFECT TO REMOVE SUCH INDIVIDUALS FROM CONSIDERATION AS MEMBERS OF THE EMPLOYEE'S IMMEDIATE FAMILY FOR WHOM EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION FOR TRAVEL TO THE NEW STATION ARE PROVIDED FOR BY SAID SECTION 201 (A). THE EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION PAYABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201 (A) OF THE INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATION ACT, 1946, AND THE EXECUTIVE REGULATIONS THEREUNDER, IN THE CASE OF MEMBERS OF AN EMPLOYEE'S IMMEDIATE FAMILY WHO EITHER HAVE NEVER JOINED HIM AT HIS DUTY STATION OR ARE TEMPORARILY ABSENT THEREFROM AT THE TIME HE IS PERMANENTLY TRANSFERRED TO A NEW STATION, ARE FOR COMPUTATION ON THE BASIS OF THE ACTUAL COST OF TRANSPORTATION TO THE NEW STATION FROM WHATEVER POINT SUCH MEMBERS MAY BE WHEN THE TRANSFER ORDERS ARE RECEIVED, NOT TO EXCEED THE COST BY THE MOST ECONOMICAL USUALLY TRAVELED ROUTE FROM THE OLD TO THE NEW STATION. WHERE THE TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES OF AN EMPLOYEE'S IMMEDIATE FAMILY WERE AUTHORIZED PURSUANT TO SECTION 201 (A) OF THE INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATION ACT, 1946, UPON THE EMPLOYEE'S PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY AN ADDITIONAL STATION CHANGE WAS ORDERED BEFORE THE FAMILY DEPARTED FROM THE FIRST STATION, REIMBURSEMENT IS AUTHORIZED FOR ACTUAL COST OF TRANSPORTATION FROM THE FIRST TO THE THIRD STATION, NOT TO EXCEED THE COST FROM THE FIRST TO THE THIRD STATION BY WAY OF THE SECOND STATION, PROVIDED THE TRANSFER IS MADE WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE EMPLOYEE'S FIRST TRANSFER AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 2, PART II, OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9587, ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE ACT.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL WARREN TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, OCTOBER 4, 1945:

I HAVE YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1945, AS FOLLOWS:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO SECTION 201 (A) OF THE INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATION ACT, 1946, PUBLIC LAW 49, 79TH CONGRESS, AND EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9587 DATED JULY 6, 1945 (10 F.R. 8523), ISSUED PURSUANT THERETO, RELATIVE TO TRANSPORTATION OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILIES OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES ON TRANSFER FROM ONE OFFICIAL STATION TO ANOTHER FOR PERMANENT DUTY.

SECTION 2 OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER PROVIDES:

"THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY OF AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THOSE PROVISIONS OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS WHICH RELATE TO TRANSPORTATION. THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION BY THE MOST ECONOMICAL ROUTE BETWEEN THE LAST OFFICIAL STATION AND THE NEW STATION. NO PAYMENTS SHALL BE AUTHORIZED HEREUNDER IN THE EVENT TRANSPORTATION OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY DOES NOT BEGIN WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE TRANSFER OF THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, UNLESS AN EXTENSION OF TIME IS SPECIFICALLY GRANTED BY THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY CONCERNED.'

THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS AUTHORIZE, IN PARAGRAPHS 12 AND 12A, USE BY EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATELY OWNED CONVEYANCES ON EITHER AN ACTUAL EXPENSE OR MILEAGE BASIS. SINCE USE OF PRIVATELY OWNED CONVEYANCES MAY BE AUTHORIZED UNDER THE TRAVEL REGULATIONS, THERE WOULD APPEAR TO BE NO OBJECTION TO AUTHORIZING TRANSPORTATION OF FAMILIES OF TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEES BY THE SAME MEANS ON EITHER AN ACTUAL EXPENSE OR MILEAGE BASIS. IN CONNECTION WITH TRAVEL OF FAMILIES ON A MILEAGE BASIS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT NEITHER SECTION 201 (A) OF THE INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATION ACT, 1946, NOR EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9587, SPECIFY THAT THE EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION ARE TO BE LIMITED TO ACTUAL COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION, SO LONG AS SUCH COST IS NOT (IN) EXCESS OF THE COST BY THE MOST ECONOMICAL MEANS.

WHILE IT WOULD APPEAR FROM THE FOREGOING THAT TRANSPORTATION OF FAMILIES MAY BE AUTHORIZED ON EITHER AN ACTUAL EXPENSE OR MILEAGE BASIS, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL OF JUNE 9, 1932, 11 COMP. GEN. 471, DENYING PAYMENT OF MILEAGE TO DEPENDENTS, YOUR DECISION IS REQUESTED AS TO WHETHER PAYMENT ON EITHER A MILEAGE OR ACTUAL BASIS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF FAMILIES OF TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEES IS AUTHORIZED UNDER SECTION 201 (A) OF THE INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATION ACT, 1946,AS IMPLEMENTED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9587.

ASIDE FROM THE MATTER OF PAYING MILEAGE, THERE IS FOR CONSIDERATION THE QUESTION OF WHETHER COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION OF AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY, EITHER BY COMMON CARRIER OR OTHERWISE, MAY BE AUTHORIZED WHEN THE FAMILY IS NOT ACTUALLY RESIDING WITH THE EMPLOYEE WHEN THE TRANSFER IS MADE.

THE TERM "IMMEDIATE FAMILY" IS DEFINED IN SECTION 1 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9587 AS "ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE OFFICER'S OR EMPLOYEE'S HOUSEHOLD: SPOUSE, CHILDREN (INCLUDING STEPCHILDREN AND ADOPTED CHILDREN) UNMARRIED AND UNDER TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR PHYSICALLY OR MENTALLY INCAPABLE OF SELF-SUPPORT REGARDLESS OF AGE, AND DEPENDENT PARENTS.' THE EXECUTIVE ORDER PROVIDES, IN EFFECT, THAT TRANSPORTATION OF VARIOUS MEMBERS OF AN EMPLOYEE'S HOUSEHOLD MAY BE AUTHORIZED. "HOUSEHOLD" IS DEFINED, ACCORDING TO VARIOUS REFERENCES, AS A FAMILY LIVING TOGETHER, THOSE WHO DWELL UNDER THE SAME ROOF AND COMPOSE A FAMILY, A DOMESTIC ESTABLISHMENT, AND ALL WHO ARE UNDER ONE DOMESTIC HEAD. FOLLOWING THESE GENERALLY ACCEPTED DEFINITIONS, IN ORDER TO PAY THE TRANSPORTATION OF AN EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY, IT WOULD SEEM NECESSARY FOR THE FAMILY TO BE ACTUALLY RESIDING WITH THE EMPLOYEE AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSFER. HOWEVER, IT FREQUENTLY HAPPENS THAT SOME MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY ARE AWAY FROM THE HOUSEHOLD OF THE EMPLOYEE TEMPORARILY BUT WHO INTEND TO RESUME RESIDENCE WITH THE EMPLOYEE AT SOME LATER DATE. ILLUSTRATIVE OF THIS PROPOSITION ARE CASES WHERE CHILDREN ARE AWAY AT SCHOOL OR TEMPORARILY EMPLOYED, WHEN THE FAMILY HAS REMAINED AT A FORMER DUTY STATION, WHERE TEMPORARY RESIDENCE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AT A POINT OTHER THAN THE DUTY STATION, AND WHERE THE FAMILY IS AWAY FROM THE EMPLOYEE TEMPORARILY, AS ON A VISIT. ACCORDINGLY, YOUR RULING IS REQUESTED WHETHER TRANSPORTATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE MAY BE AUTHORIZED FOR MEMBERS OF AN EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY WHO ARE NOT ACTUALLY RESIDING WITH THE EMPLOYEE WHEN THE TRANSFER ORDER IS ISSUED OR WHEN THE TRANSFER IS MADE.

IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROBLEM, YOUR DECISION WOULD BE APPRECIATED WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING CASES.

1. IT IS PROPOSED TO AUTHORIZE TRANSPORTATION OF AN EMPLOYEE AND HIS FAMILY FROM DENVER, COLORADO, TO WASHINGTON, D.C. ONE OF HIS CHILDREN IS IN COLLEGE AT ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN, AND THE OTHER IS TEMPORARILY EMPLOYED AT CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, PENDING ENTRANCE TO COLLEGE. IF TRANSPORTATION OF THE CHILDREN AT THE GOVERNMENT EXPENSE IS AUTHORIZED, SHOULD THE COST THEREOF BE (A) FROM CHICAGO AND ANN ARBOR TO WASHINGTON, D.C., (B) FROM CHICAGO AND ANN ARBOR TO WASHINGTON, D.C., LESS COST OF TRANSPORTATION FROM CHICAGO AND ANN ARBOR TO WASHINGTON, D. C., LESS COST OF TRANSPORTATION FROM CHICAGO AND ANN ARBOR TO DENVER, COLORADO, OR (C) FROM CHICAGO AND ANN ARBOR TO WASHINGTON, D.C., NOT TO EXCEED THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION BY THE MOST ECONOMICAL ROUTE BETWEEN THE LAST OFFICIAL STATION AND THE NEW OFFICIAL STATION?

2. AN EMPLOYEE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM PORTLAND, OREGON, TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1945, AND IT IS PROPOSED TO TRANSFER HIM TO WASHINGTON, D.C. HIS FAMILY HAS NOT YET JOINED HIM AT ST. LOUIS. MAY TRANSPORTATION OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY BE AUTHORIZED FROM PORTLAND TO WASHINGTON, D.C., WITH THE COST OF SUCH TRANSPORTATION NOT TO EXCEED THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION FROM ST. LOUIS TO WASHINGTON, D.C. ?

3. TRANSPORTATION OF AN EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY FROM MADISON, WISCONSIN, TO NEW YORK CITY WAS AUTHORIZED UPON CHANGE OF AN EMPLOYEE'S STATION, BUT THE FAMILY HAS NOT MOVED AS YET. THE EMPLOYEE IS NOW PROPOSED FOR TRANSFER TO WASHINGTON, D.C.MAY TRANSPORTATION OF THE FAMILY BE AUTHORIZED FROM MADISON TO WASHINGTON AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE OR MUST THE COST BE LIMITED TO THAT OF TRANSPORTATION FROM NEW YORK TO WASHINGTON, D.C. ?

COMMUTATION OF ACTUAL EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION, SUCH AS THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE FOR THE USE OF A PRIVATELY-OWNED AUTOMOBILE, IS NOT AUTHORIZED EXCEPT PURSUANT TO STATUTORY AUTHORITY THEREFOR. 23 COMP. GEN. 875, AND CASES THEREIN CITED. THE ONLY AUTHORITY FOR THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE FOR THE USE OF A PRIVATELY-OWNED AUTOMOBILE IS THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 14, 1931, 46 STAT. 1103, AS AMENDED, WHICH AUTHORIZES SUCH MILEAGE ONLY TO "A CIVILIAN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE ENGAGED IN NECESSARY TRAVEL ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS FROM HIS DESIGNATED POST OF DUTY.' SECTION 201 (A) OF THE INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATION ACT FOR 1946, APPROVED MAY 3, 1945, PUBLIC LAW 49, 59 STAT. 131, PROVIDES:

APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1946 AVAILABLE FOR EXPENSES OF TRAVEL OF CIVILIAN OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND INDEPENDENT ESTABLISHMENTS SHALL BE AVAILABLE ALSO FOR EXPENSES OF TRAVEL PERFORMED BY THEM INCLUDING EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION OF THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT, ON TRANSFER FROM ONE OFFICIAL STATION TO ANOTHER FOR PERMANENT DUTY WHEN AUTHORIZED BY THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OR ESTABLISHMENT CONCERNED IN THE ORDER DIRECTING SUCH TRANSFER: PROVIDED, THAT SUCH EXPENSES SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED FOR ANY TRANSFER EFFECTED FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE.

IT WILL BE NOTED THAT SAID SECTION 201 (A) DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR MILEAGE FOR TRAVEL BY THE IMMEDIATE FAMILIES BUT ONLY FOR "EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION.' IN 11 COMP. GEN. 471, REFERRED TO BY YOU, THERE WAS INVOLVED THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 21, 1931, 46 STAT. 1205, WHICH AUTHORIZED THE FAMILIES OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TO ACCOMPANY THE EMPLOYEES WHEN TRANSFERRED FROM ONE STATION TO ANOTHER IN THE UNITED STATES AND DIRECTED THAT THERE BE ALLOWED "THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF THEIR WIVES AND DEPENDENT MINOR CHILDREN" WITHIN THE DISCRETION AND UNDER WRITTEN ORDERS OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR. IT WAS HELD IN THAT CASE THAT SAID ACT OF FEBRUARY 21, 1931, DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED BY THE FAMILY OF EMPLOYEES SO TRANSFERRED. SEE ALSO 23 COMP. GEN. 549, 555.

THE REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN EXECUTIVE ORDER 9587 DO NOT PURPORT TO AUTHORIZE MILEAGE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF FAMILIES OF OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES TRANSFERRED BETWEEN OFFICIAL STATIONS BUT PROVIDE MERELY THAT THE TRANSPORTATION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS WHICH RELATE TO TRANSPORTATION. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHILE THE FAMILIES OF EMPLOYEES MAY BE AUTHORIZED TO TRAVEL BY PRIVATELY-OWNED AUTOMOBILE ON AN ACTUAL EXPENSE BASIS NOT EXCEEDING THE COST BY COMMON CARRIER, MILEAGE MAY NOT BE AUTHORIZED FOR SUCH TRAVEL BY THE FAMILIES SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE EMPLOYEE HIMSELF.

THE TERM,"IMMEDIATE FAMILY" OF THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AS USED IN SECTION 201 (A) OF THE INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATION ACT, 1946, SUPRA, IS DEFINED IN SECTION 1, PART II, OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 9587, AS FOLLOWS:

THE TERM IMMEDIATE FAMILY SHALL MEAN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE OFFICER'S OR EMPLOYEE'S HOUSEHOLD: SPOUSE, CHILDREN (INCLUDING STEPCHILDREN AND ADOPTED CHILDREN) UNMARRIED AND UNDER TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR PHYSICALLY OR MENTALLY INCAPABLE OF SELF-SUPPORT REGARDLESS OF AGE, AND DEPENDENT PARENTS.

MEMBERS OF AN EMPLOYEE'S HOUSEHOLD ORDINARILY ARE THOSE DEPENDENT UPON AND RESIDING WITH THE EMPLOYEE. TEMPORARY ABSENCE FROM HOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF ATTENDING SCHOOL, VISITING, OR LIKE TEMPORARY PURPOSES-- AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSFER OF THE EMPLOYEE--- WOULD NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF REMOVING SUCH INDIVIDUALS FROM CONSIDERATION AS MEMBERS OF THE EMPLOYEE'S HOUSEHOLD. WITH RESPECT TO THE POINTS BETWEEN WHICH TRANSPORTATION OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSEHOLD MAY BE AUTHORIZED, IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT EXECUTIVE ORDER 9587 DOES NOT PLACE ANY LIMITATION OR RESTRICTION THEREON EXCEPT THAT "THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION BY THE MOST ECONOMICAL ROUTE BETWEEN THE LAST OFFICIAL STATION AND NEW OFFICIAL STATION.' UNDER SIMILAR STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REGULATION IT HAS BEEN CUSTOMARY HERETOFORE TO PERMIT REIMBURSEMENT OF THE ACTUAL COST OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE MEMBERS OF EMPLOYEE'S HOUSEHOLD FROM WHATEVER POINT THEY MAY BE WHEN THE TRANSFER ORDERS ARE RECEIVED TO THE NEW OFFICIAL DUTY STATION OF THE EMPLOYEE, NOT TO EXCEED, HOWEVER, THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION BY THE MOST ECONOMICAL USUALLY-TRAVELED ROUTE BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW STATIONS. 2 COMP. GEN. 464; 4 ID. 40; 19 ID. 102.

IN ANSWER TO QUESTION 1, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE TWO CHILDREN WOULD BE AUTHORIZED FROM ANN ARBOR AND CHICAGO, RESPECTIVELY, TO WASHINGTON, D.C., NOT TO EXCEED IN EACH CASE WHAT IT WOULD HAVE COST FOR TRANSPORTATION FROM DENVER TO WASHINGTON, D.C.

QUESTION 2 IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

IN ANSWER TO QUESTION 3, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT IF THE EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY MOVES FROM MADISON, WISCONSIN, TO WASHINGTON, D.C., WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE EMPLOYEE'S FIRST TRANSFER, THE COST MAY BE PAID FROM MADISON DIRECTLY TO WASHINGTON, D.C., ASSUMING THAT SUCH COST WOULD NOT EXCEED THE COST FROM MADISON TO NEW YORK CITY AND FROM NEW YORK CITY TO WASHINGTON, D.C. COMPARE 20 COMP. GEN. 568, QUESTION AND ANSWER NO. 3.