B-5571, MARCH 14, 1940, 19 COMP. GEN. 781

B-5571: Mar 14, 1940

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

OFFICERS THE QUESTION WHETHER A PAYEE IS ENTITLED TO SOME OTHER REIMBURSEMENT OR PAYMENT THAN HAS BEEN MADE. HAS THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT CLAIM OR REQUEST REVIEW OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE SETTLEMENT BY WHICH PAYMENT WAS MADE. THERE MUST BE MORE THAN ONE JOURNEY TO A GIVEN POINT BEFORE TRAVEL IS "REPEATED TRAVEL" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT OF JUNE 1. THE FACT THAT REIMBURSEMENT FOR A PORTION OF OFFICIAL TRAVEL IS REQUIRED TO BE ON AN ACTUAL EXPENSE BASIS AS FOR "REPEATED TRAVEL" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT OF JUNE 1. 1940: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 11. THE LETTER OF THE PAYMASTER GENERAL IS AS FOLLOWS: 1. - "BUT IN CASES WHEN ORDERS ARE GIVEN FOR TRAVEL TO BE PERFORMED REPEATEDLY BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PLACES IN THE SAME VICINITY.

B-5571, MARCH 14, 1940, 19 COMP. GEN. 781

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE JURISDICTION AND TRAVELING EXPENSES FOR REPEATED TRAVEL OF NAVY, ETC., OFFICERS THE QUESTION WHETHER A PAYEE IS ENTITLED TO SOME OTHER REIMBURSEMENT OR PAYMENT THAN HAS BEEN MADE, MAY NOT BE DECIDED BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE ON THE BASIS OF A SUBMISSION BY A GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, BUT THE PAYEE, IF HE BELIEVES HE HAS BEEN UNDERPAID, HAS THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT CLAIM OR REQUEST REVIEW OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE SETTLEMENT BY WHICH PAYMENT WAS MADE. THERE MUST BE MORE THAN ONE JOURNEY TO A GIVEN POINT BEFORE TRAVEL IS "REPEATED TRAVEL" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT OF JUNE 1, 1926, 44 STAT. 680, PROVIDING FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO NAVY, ETC., OFFICERS FOR SUCH TRAVEL ON AN ACTUAL EXPENSE (AS DISTINGUISHED FROM MILEAGE) BASIS, BUT STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE SECOND JOURNEY BE OVER THE IDENTICAL ROUTE OR THAT STOPS BE AT THE SAME PLACES AS ON THE FIRST JOURNEY. PRIOR DECISIONS MODIFIED. THE FACT THAT REIMBURSEMENT FOR A PORTION OF OFFICIAL TRAVEL IS REQUIRED TO BE ON AN ACTUAL EXPENSE BASIS AS FOR "REPEATED TRAVEL" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT OF JUNE 1, 1926, 44 STAT. 680, DOES NOT PROHIBIT REIMBURSEMENT ON A MILEAGE BASIS FOR THAT PORTION OF THE TRAVEL BEYOND THE REPEATED TRAVEL POINT TO WHICH ONLY A SINGLE JOURNEY HAS BEEN MADE. PRIOR DECISIONS MODIFIED.

ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL ELLIOTT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, MARCH 14, 1940:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 11, 1939, ENCLOSING A LETTER OF AUGUST 3, 1939, FROM THE PAYMASTER GENERAL OF THE NAVY, RELATIVE TO THE REPEATED TRAVEL STATUS OF CAPT. RALPH T. HANSON, CONSTRUCTION CORPS, UNITED STATES NAVY. THE LETTER OF THE PAYMASTER GENERAL IS AS FOLLOWS:

1. THE ACT OF 10 JUNE 1922 (42 STAT. 631), AS AMENDED BY ACT OF 1 JUNE 1926 (44 STAT. 630), PROVIDES---

"BUT IN CASES WHEN ORDERS ARE GIVEN FOR TRAVEL TO BE PERFORMED REPEATEDLY BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PLACES IN THE SAME VICINITY, AS DETERMINED BY THE HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT CONCERNED, HE MAY, IN HIS DISCRETION, DIRECT THAT ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES ONLY BE ALLOWED.'

2. THE FOLLOWING TRAVEL FROM MUNHALL, PA., OFFICIAL DUTY STATION, HAS BEEN PERFORMED TO DATE BY CAPTAIN RALPH T. HANSON ( C.C.), U.S.N., UNDER ENCLOSURES (A):

CHART

VOUCHER NO. DATE PAID PLACES AT WHICH DUTY PERFORMED --- ----------------

35837 ----------- NOV. 13, 1936 RIDGWAY, PA., AND RETURN; E.

PITTSBURGH, PA., AND RETURN

CORRY, IRVINE, PA., CORRY,

PA., AND RETURN.

42909 ----------- DEC. 11, 1936 N.S. PITTSBURGH, PA. AND RETURN;

CLEVELAND, OHIO, TOLEDO, OHIO,

DETROIT, MICH., TOLEDO, OHIO,

AND RETURN.

53962 ----------- JAN. 27, 1937 BUFFALO, N.Y., ERIE, PA.,

ASHTABULA, OHIO, AND RETURN.

5865 ------------ JULY 21, 1937 CANTON, OHIO, MASSILLON, OHIO,

CANTON, OHIO, AKRON, OHIO,

BARBERTON, OHIO, AKRON, OHIO,

MOUNT VERNON, OHIO, DETROIT,

MICH., LAKEWOOD, OHIO,

CLEVELAND, OHIO, AND RETURN.

15543 ----------- AUG. 20, 1937 CLEVELAND, OHIO, AND RETURN.

41559 ----------- NOV. 12, 1937 YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO, CLEVELAND,

OHIO, TOLEDO, OHIO, AND RETURN.

58632 ----------- JAN. 10, 1938 CLEVELAND, OHIO, DETROIT, MICH.

AND RETURN.

92207 ----------- MAY 5, 1938 CLEVELAND, OHIO, NEW PARIS,

IND., CLEVELAND, OHIO, AND

RETURN.

103389 ---------- JUNE 13, 1938 UNIONTOWN, PA., AND RETURN;

MOUNT VERNON, OHIO, SHELBY,

OHIO, DETROIT, MICH. AND RETURN.

G.A.O. 10520268,-- NOV. 22, 1938 RIDGWAY, PA., IRVINE, PA.,

10289281--- CORRY, PA., ERIE, PA.,

BUFFALO, N.Y., ROCHESTER, N.Y.

SENECA FALLS, N.Y., ELMIRA,

N.Y., JOHNSTOWN, PA., AND

RETURN.

37202 ----------- NOV. 8, 1938CANTON, OHIO, SHELBY, OHIO,

MANSFIELD, OHIO, DETROIT, MICH.

CLEVELAND, OHIO, ELLWOOD CITY,

PA. AND RETURN.

56064 ----------- JAN. 19, 1939 CLEVELAND, OHIO, DETROIT, MICH.

AND RETURN.

94978 -----------JUNE 8, 1939 CANTON, OHIO, MANSFIELD, OHIO,

SHELBY, OHIO, TOLEDO, OHIO,

CLEVELAND, OHIO, YOUNGSTOWN,

OHIO AND RETURN.

7552 ------------ JULY 31, 1939 WILLIAMSPORT, PA., ELMIRA, N.Y.

CORNING, N.Y., PAINTED POST,

N.Y., ELMIRA, N.Y., MONTOUR

FALLS, N.Y., ROCHESTER, N.Y.,

DANSVILLE, N.Y., ROCHESTER,

N.Y., BUFFALO, N.Y., DUNKIRK,

N.Y., JAMESTOWN, N.Y., IRVINE

PA., CORRY, PA., ERIE, PA.,

CLEVELAND, OHIO, AND RETURN.

3. THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S DECISION A-6047, PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 4, PAGE 507 OF DECISIONS OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL, READS IN PART AS FOLLOWS:

"THE PHRASEOLOGY OF THAT PART OF SECTION 12 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922, AS TO "TRAVEL TO BE PERFORMED REPEATEDLY BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PLACES" IS SIMILAR TO THAT USED IN THE ACT OF JULY 1, 1902, 32 STAT. 663. TO BE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR ACTUAL EXPENSES, IN LIEU OF MILEAGE, UNDER THE 1902 ACT, IT WAS REPEATEDLY HELD THAT MORE THAN ONE JOURNEY OR ROUND TRIP BETWEEN THE SAME PLACES WAS NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE TRAVEL "PERFORMED REPEATEDLY BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PLACES.'

4. THE TRAVEL ACTUALLY PERFORMED AS INDICATED ABOVE WAS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT INSPECTION DUTIES. TO HAVE TRAVELED TO EACH INDIVIDUAL INSPECTION POINT AND RETURNED TO OFFICIAL HEADQUARTERS WOULD HAVE INVOLVED NOT ONLY CONSIDERABLE UNNECESSARY TIME BUT WOULD HAVE GREATLY INCREASED THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION AND SUBSISTENCE.

5. ENCLOSURES (B) ARE SUBMITTED SHOWING THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF THE PLACES AT WHICH DUTY WAS PERFORMED AS COVERED BY VOUCHERS INDICATED THEREON. WHILE A NUMBER OF THE PLACES HAVE BEEN VISITED MORE THAN ONCE, EACH TRIP HAS INVOLVED ADDITIONAL PLACES ENROUTE AT WHICH INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED.

6. THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THE TRAVEL PERFORMED, ESPECIALLY THOSE TRIPS COVERED BY ENCLOSURES (B), IS CONSIDERED REPEATED TRAVEL ENTITLING THE OFFICER TO ACTUAL EXPENSES IN LIEU OF MILEAGE.

7. IF IT IS HELD THAT THE OFFICER MUST REPEAT TRAVEL TO EACH INDIVIDUAL INSPECTION DUTY PLACE IN THE ORDER OF INSPECTION AND RETURN TO MUNHALL, PA., ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE FACT THAT SINCE CAPTAIN HANSON HAS BEEN ON DUTY AT MUNHALL, PA., NO REPEATED TRAVEL HAS BEEN PERFORMED EXCEPT AS COVERED BY VOUCHERS 42909, 58632, AND 56064.

8. IF IT IS HELD THAT REPEATED TRAVEL HAS NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED EXCEPT AS COVERED BY VOUCHERS REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH SEVEN, INFORMATION IS REQUESTED IF THE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO MILEAGE COVERING THOSE TRIPS IN WHICH ACTUAL EXPENSES WERE LESS THAN MILEAGE.

THE OFFICER'S ORDERS OF AUGUST 14, 1936, DIRECTED REPEATED TRAVEL BETWEEN MUNHALL, PA., AND SUCH PLACES WITHIN THE PITTSBURGH INSPECTION DISTRICT AS IT MIGHT BE NECESSARY FOR HIM TO VISIT IN CONNECTION WITH HIS DUTY. THE ORDERS HAVE BEEN EXTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME, THE LAST EXTENSION CONTINUING THE ORDERS IN EFFECT UNTIL FEBRUARY 1, 1941. ALTHOUGH EXTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME (AND BEFORE TERMINATION) THE SERIES OF ORDERS CONSTITUTE A SINGLE ORDER AND, AS TO REPEATED TRAVEL, COVER ALL TRAVEL MADE PURSUANT THERETO.

IT APPEARS FROM THE LETTER OF THE PAYMASTER GENERAL THAT HIS INQUIRY IS WITH RESPECT TO PAYMENTS ALREADY MADE AND THE QUESTION IS ASKED (PAR. 8) WHETHER THE OFFICER IS ENTITLED TO SOME OTHER REIMBURSEMENT OR PAYMENT THAN HAS BEEN MADE. THIS OFFICE MAY NOT RENDER A DECISION ON SUCH A QUESTION ON THE BASIS OF THIS SUBMISSION. THE OFFICER HAS BEEN PAID, AND IF HE BELIEVES HE HAS BEEN UNDERPAID IN ANY PARTICULAR, HE HAS THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT A CLAIM THEREFOR OR REQUEST REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT BY WHICH PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THIS OFFICE. HOWEVER, YOUR LETTER WILL BE TREATED AS A REQUEST FOR AN ADVANCE DECISION FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT IN THE FUTURE, AND THE SPECIFIC TRIPS TO WHICH REFERENCE IS MADE IN THE QUOTED LETTER, SUPRA, WILL BE CONSIDERED ONLY AS EXAMPLES OF TRAVEL UNDER THE ORDERS FOR CONSIDERATION AS TO THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE.

THIS IS A CASE OF TRAVEL FROM THE FIELD HEADQUARTERS OR THE POST OF DUTY OF AN OFFICER TO NUMEROUS POINTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERFORMANCE OF DUTY, THE VARIOUS PLACES HAVING BEEN DETERMINED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY TO BE IN THE SAME VICINITY AS THE POST OF DUTY. THE PAYMENT AND AUDIT OF EXPENSES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH SEEM TO HAVE BEEN WITH REGARD TO EACH INDIVIDUAL POINT NAMED ON THE VOUCHERS AND BY THAT METHOD QUESTIONS ARISE AS TO THE PROPER MEASURE OF REIMBURSEMENT WITH RESPECT TO SUCH PLACES; THAT IS, WHETHER EACH SUCH PLACE HAS BEEN VISITED BUT ONCE OR MORE THAN ONCE; AND WHERE THE JOURNEY TO A MORE DISTANT POINT IS REPEATED BUT SOME INTERVENING POINTS HAVE BEEN VISITED BUT ONCE, OR THE JOURNEY TO A MORE DISTANT POINT HAS BEEN BY A DIFFERENT ROUTE OR STOPS OMITTED AT SOME INTERMEDIATE POINT AND STOPS MADE AT OTHER INTERMEDIATE POINTS, UNDER THE METHOD USED A DOUBT ARISES AS TO THE PROPER MEASURE OF REIMBURSEMENT. BASIS FOR REIMBURSEMENT WHICH RESULTS IN THE LEAST COST TO THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE PROPER APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE.

IT IS SETTLED THAT THERE MUST HAVE BEEN MORE THAN ONE JOURNEY TO A GIVEN POINT BEFORE THE TRAVEL IS REPEATED. WILLITS V. UNITED STATES, 38 CT.1CLS. 534 AND 759. BUT THE APPLICABLE STATUTE DOES NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE THAT THE SECOND JOURNEY SHALL BE OVER THE IDENTICAL ROUTE WITH STOPS AT IDENTICALLY THE SAME PLACES AS ON THE FIRST JOURNEY. WHERE THE TRAVEL IS TO A GIVEN POINT, THAT TRAVEL MUST BE REPEATED BEFORE THE STATUTE IS OPERATIVE AND WHEN SO REPEATED THE STATUTE BECOMES OPERATIVE; BUT IF THAT RULE IS APPLICABLE TO INTERMEDIATE POINTS AND TO INCIDENTAL SIDE TRIPS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PRINCIPAL JOURNEY TO A MORE DISTANT POINT THE COMPLICATIONS RESULTING IN THE COMPUTATION MILITATE AGAINST THE USE OF THE STATUTE.

WHERE TRAVEL IS MADE TO A GIVEN POINT, STOPS FOR DUTY ARE MADE AT INTERVENING POINTS, AND THE TRAVEL TO SAID GIVEN POINT IS REPEATED WITH STOPS AT THE SAME OR SOME OR DIFFERENT INTERVENING POINTS, THE TRAVEL IS REPEATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE STATUTE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ROUTE FOLLOWED OR THE INTERVENING POINTS AT WHICH DUTY WAS PERFORMED. IF THE SECOND OR LATER JOURNEYS ARE MADE TO THAT POINT AND BEYOND, PAYMENT IS AUTHORIZED OF ACTUAL EXPENSES OR PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE FOR THE TRAVEL BETWEEN HIS STATION AND THAT POINT, BUT FOR THE TRAVEL BEYOND THAT POINT WHICH IS NOT REPEATED, MILEAGE WILL BE PAYABLE. ALL STOPS NOTED ON THE VOUCHERS REFERRED TO APPARENTLY HAVE BEEN TREATED AS TRAVEL TO SUCH POINTS BUT IN SOME CASES THE STOP WAS MERELY FOR LODGING AND SUBSISTENCE EN ROUTE TO A MORE DISTANT POINT. OBVIOUSLY, SUCH A STOP FOR LODGING AND SUBSISTENCE EN ROUTE TO A MORE DISTANT POINT IS BUT AN INCIDENT OF TRAVEL TO THE MORE DISTANT POINT AND IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE NOTICED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE JOURNEY TO THE MORE DISTANT POINT.

AN EXAMINATION OF THE PAPERS IN THE CASE OF WILLITS V. UNITED STATES, 38 CT.1CLS. 534, HAS BEEN MADE. IT APPEARS THAT IN THAT CASE CLAIM ORIGINALLY WAS MADE FOR MILEAGE FOR ALL THE TRAVEL PERFORMED ON THE THEORY THAT NONE OF THE PLACES WERE IN THE SAME VICINITY. THE COURT'S OPINION NEGATIVED THAT VIEW. BUT THE COURT FOUND THAT IN THE ITEMS WHICH MADE UP THE CLAIMANT'S CASE THERE WERE THREE WHERE THE TRAVEL WAS NOT "REPEATED" AMOUNTING IN THE AGGREGATE TO 1,338 MILES WHICH, AT 8 CENTS PER MILE, WOULD ENTITLE THE CLAIMANT TO $107.04. BUT AS IT WAS CONCEDED THE CLAIMANT HAD RECEIVED HIS ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES FOR THAT TRAVEL AND THE AMOUNT THEREOF NOT BEING BEFORE THE COURT, IT COULD NOT MAKE THE NECESSARY REDUCTION AND THE CASE WAS REMANDED TO THE GENERAL DOCKET WITH LEAVE TO THE CLAIMANT TO SHOW WHAT THESE ACTUAL EXPENSES WERE. THE ITEMS LISTED IN THE PETITION WERE FOR 48 ROUND TRIPS BETWEEN HARRISBURG, PA., AND READING, PA.; 5 ROUND TRIPS BETWEEN HARRISBURG AND LEBANON, PA.; 3 ROUND TRIPS BETWEEN HARRISBURG AND ATHENS, PA.; 3 ROUND TRIPS BETWEEN HARRISBURG AND WILLIAMSPORT, PA.; 1 ROUND TRIP BETWEEN HARRISBURG AND ROME, N.Y.; 1 ROUND TRIP BETWEEN HARRISBURG AND AUBURN, N.Y.; AND 1 ROUND TRIP BETWEEN HARRISBURG AND YORK, PA. THE MILEAGE SHOWN FOR THE THREE LATTER TRIPS WAS 1,338 MILES WHICH, AT 8 CENTS, EQUALED $107.04. THE CLAIMANT THEREAFTER FILED HIS CERTIFICATE THAT HE HAD BEEN PAID A TOTAL OF $52.90 ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES FOR THESE TRIPS AND THE COURT ALLOWED THE DIFFERENCE, $54.14. 38 CT.1CLS. 759. THE TRIPS AS LISTED IN THE PETITION INVOLVED TRIPS BETWEEN TWO GIVEN POINTS WITHOUT STOPOVERS OR DEVIATION. THEREFORE, THE CASE IS AUTHORITY ONLY FOR THE VIEW THAT UNLESS TRAVEL IS REPEATED--- THAT IS, MORE THAN ONE ROUND TRIP IS MADE BETWEEN GIVEN POINTS--- THE TRAVEL IS NOT REPEATED AND THE OFFICER WILL BE ENTITLED TO MILEAGE AND NOT TO ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES. THE COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO CONSIDER WHAT THE RULE WOULD BE WERE DIFFERENT INTERMEDIATE POINTS VISITED ON THE SECOND OR LATER JOURNEYS, NOR WHETHER THE ROUTE OF TRAVEL WOULD AFFECT THE OFFICER'S RIGHTS WHERE THE TRAVEL WAS REPEATED BETWEEN TWO GIVEN POINTS. SOME OF THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS' DECISIONS ON THESE LATTER FEATURES SEEM TO HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE COURT'S HOLDING AS TO THE NECESSITY FOR REPEATED TRAVEL BEFORE THE STATUTE WOULD BE OPERATIVE, AND THE FEATURE OF THOSE DECISIONS BROUGHT IN QUESTION NOW IS THAT THERE CANNOT BE PAYMENT OF ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES AND MILEAGE FOR THE SAME JOURNEY. IF SUCH HOLDING IS LIMITED TO TRAVEL BETWEEN IDENTICALLY THE SAME TERMINAL POINTS AND THAT TRAVEL HAS BEEN REPEATED, THE RULE IS SOUND THAT NO MILEAGE IS PROPERLY PAYABLE. BUT IF THERE IS A SINGLE JOURNEY BEYOND A POINT TO WHICH REPEATED TRAVEL HAS BEEN MADE, NO REASON APPEARS WHY MILEAGE LEGALLY MAY NOT BE PAID FOR THE UNREPEATED PORTION OF THE JOURNEY. IN SUCH A CASE TWO STATUTES ARE APPLICABLE TO THE JOURNEY AS A WHOLE--- ONE AUTHORIZING ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES FOR THE PORTION OVER WHICH THE TRAVEL WAS REPEATED AND THE OTHER AUTHORIZING MILEAGE FOR THE UNREPEATED PORTION OF THE JOURNEY, AND EACH STATUTE WILL OPERATE ON THE PORTION TO WHICH THE EXISTING FACTS MAKE IT APPLICABLE. SUCH BASIS HAS BEEN USED IN OTHER SITUATIONS, AS WHERE AIR TRAVEL TERMINATES AND FURTHER TRAVEL IS MADE BY LAND AND MILEAGE HAS BEEN ALLOWED. A-84935, APRIL 23, 1937, CASE OF LT. COL. S. U. IDZOREK, A.C., UNITED STATES ARMY. SEE, ALSO, UNITED STATES V. MCDONALD, 128 U.S. 471, WHERE, AS A RESULT OF A CHANGE IN THE LAW, THE COURT APPLIED THE OLD LAW FOR PART OF A JOURNEY AND THE NEW LAW FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE JOURNEY. SEE, ALSO, 6 COMP. DEC. 526, AND B-7395, JANUARY 2, 1940, 19 COMP. GEN. 617.

SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS AND CLAIMS HEREAFTER WILL BE ON THE BASIS OF THIS DECISION, BUT SINCE THIS DECISION MODIFIES PRIOR DECISIONS RESPECTING REPEATED TRAVEL INVOLVING INTERMEDIATE STOPS OR DIFFERENT ROUTES OF TRAVEL AND THE MATTER OF ACTUAL EXPENSES AND MILEAGE FOR A SINGLE JOURNEY WHERE PART OF THE JOURNEY IS REPEATED, IT WILL NOT BE AUTHORITY FOR REOPENING ACCOUNTS OR CLAIMS WHICH HERETOFORE HAVE BEEN FINALLY SETTLED.