B-74062, APRIL 1, 1948, 27 COMP. GEN. 567

B-74062: Apr 1, 1948

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

THE LEGAL RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES FROM WHICH A PANAMA CANAL EMPLOYEE HAD DEPARTED AS A CHILD TO LIVE IN THE CANAL ZONE IS TO BE REGARDED AS THE PLACE OF "ACTUAL RESIDENCE" TO WHICH THE EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS MAY BE PAID UPON THE SEPARATION OF THE EMPLOYEE FROM THE SERVICE. THE EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS MAY BE AUTHORIZED IN THE CASE OF FORMER EMPLOYEES FOR WHOM THE BENEFITS OF SECTION 7 WOULD HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BUT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE INADVERTENCE AT THE TIME SUCH EMPLOYEES' SERVICES WERE TERMINATED. 1948: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 26. AS FOLLOWS: HEREWITH ARE PAPERS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM OF GEORGE F.

B-74062, APRIL 1, 1948, 27 COMP. GEN. 567

TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS - EMPLOYEES APPOINTED FOR OVERSEAS DUTY - PLACE OF ACTUAL RESIDENCE; ADVANCE AUTHORIZATION NECESSITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE STATUTE OF AUGUST 2, 1946, AUTHORIZING, IN THE CASE OF EMPLOYEES APPOINTED FOR OVERSEAS DUTY, THE PAYMENT OF TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES TO THE PLACE OF "ACTUAL RESIDENCE" AT TIME OF APPOINTMENT, THE LEGAL RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES FROM WHICH A PANAMA CANAL EMPLOYEE HAD DEPARTED AS A CHILD TO LIVE IN THE CANAL ZONE IS TO BE REGARDED AS THE PLACE OF "ACTUAL RESIDENCE" TO WHICH THE EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS MAY BE PAID UPON THE SEPARATION OF THE EMPLOYEE FROM THE SERVICE. SECTION 4 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9805, LIMITING PAYMENT OF TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES UPON TRANSFER TO THOSE AUTHORIZED "IN THE ORDER DIRECTING THE TRAVEL," BEING RESTRICTED IN APPLICATION TO THE EXPENSES OF TRANSFERS BETWEEN OFFICIAL STATIONS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 1 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE STATUTE OF AUGUST 2, 1946, HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE EXPENSES OF TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION INCIDENT TO OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE ACT, AND, THEREFORE, THE EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS MAY BE AUTHORIZED IN THE CASE OF FORMER EMPLOYEES FOR WHOM THE BENEFITS OF SECTION 7 WOULD HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BUT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE INADVERTENCE AT THE TIME SUCH EMPLOYEES' SERVICES WERE TERMINATED.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL WARREN TO THE CHIEF OF OFFICE, THE PANAMA CANAL, APRIL 1, 1948:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 26, 1948, AS FOLLOWS:

HEREWITH ARE PAPERS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM OF GEORGE F. FENTON, UNDER SECTION 7 OF PUBLIC LAW 600, 79TH CONGRESS, FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON TERMINATION OF HIS SERVICES WITH THE PANAMA CANAL IN TRANSPORTATION OF HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS, HIS WIFE AND DEPENDENT MOTHER, FROM THE CANAL ZONE TO WILLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA.

MR. FENTONS' SERVICES WITH THE PANAMA CANAL WERE TERMINATED EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 17, 1947, AT WHICH TIME THERE WAS PENDING IN YOUR OFFICE ( CLAIMS DIVISION) THE CLAIM OF ROBERT E. ERICKSON, CLAIM NO. 2713020, SETTLEMENT OF WHICH APPEARED TO INVOLVE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER MR. ERICKSON HAD "ACTUAL RESIDENCE" IN THE UNITED STATES "AT THE TIME OF ASSIGNMENT TO DUTY OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7, PUBLIC LAW 600. INASMUCH AS NO INDICATION OF THE ATTITUDE OF YOUR OFFICE IN THE ERICKSON CASE HAD BEEN RECEIVED IN SEPTEMBER 1947, MR. FENTON, IN WHOSE CASE A SIMILAR QUESTION AROSE, WAS NOT ISSUED TRAVEL ORDERS UNDER PUBLIC LAW 600. HE WAS FURNISHED TRANSPORTATION FOR HIMSELF FROM CRISTOBAL TO NEW YORK, WHICH WAS CLEARLY AUTHORIZED UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 1888, SECTION 3, AS AMENDED, AND HE WAS ADVISED BY COMPTROLLER'S LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1947, AS FOLLOWS:

"SHOULD YOU QUALIFY UNDER PUBLIC LAW 600, YOU WILL BE REIMBURSED FOR SUCH EXPENSES AS YOU INCUR AS ARE ORDINARILY ALLOWED UNDER THE LAW.'

THE PRESENT CLAIM IS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED AS FOLLOWS:

9/12/47--- DRAYAGE AND STORAGE TO PIER ( PANAMA CANAL RECEIPT NUMBER 213583) ------------------------------------ $ 8.82

9/17/47--- PACKING, CRATING, ETC., AT CANAL ZONE ( PANAMA CANAL RECEIPT NUMBER 743396) ------------------------------ 96.62

12/1/47--- CARTAGE AT NEW YORK ----------------$11.64 FREIGHT, NEW YORK TO WILLIAMSPORT, PA --------- 40.24

51.88

9/19/47--- PANAMA LINE, CRISTOBAL TO NEW YORK (WIFE AND DEPENDENT MOTHER) ------------------------------------------ 110.00

9/24/47--- MILEAGE, AUTOMOBILE, NEW YORK TO WILLIAMSPORT, 229 MILES AT ?05 PER MILE --------------------------------- 11.45

TOTAL ---------------------------- $278.77

AS INDICATED ABOVE THERE WAS SOME QUESTION, AS IN THE ERICKSON CASE, WHETHER MR. FENTON HAD ACTUAL RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES AT THE TIME OF ASSIGNMENT TO DUTY OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7, PUBLIC LAW 600. ON THIS QUESTION, IN VIEW OF YOUR DECISION OF JANUARY 15, 1947, B-62267, 26 COMP. GEN. 488, THE ATTITUDE OF THIS OFFICE IS THAT HIS FAILURE TO SPECIFY LEGAL RESIDENCE ON THE APPLICATION OR APPOINTMENT PAPERS SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN WEIGHT AS ESTABLISHING LEGAL RESIDENCE IN THE CANAL ZONE WHEN LEGAL RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IN THE UNITED STATES PRIOR TO APPOINTMENT CAN BE ESTABLISHED.

ACCORDING TO THE RECORDS IN THIS OFFICE, MR. FENTON WAS BORN IN WILLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WENT TO THE ISTHMUS IN NOVEMBER 1921, WHEN TWO YEARS OLD, TO LIVE WITH HIS FATHER, JOHN A. FENTON, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PANAMA CANAL, WHO WAS A LEGAL RESIDENT OF WILLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA. PRIOR TO MR. FENTON'S APPOINTMENT HE LIVED ON THE ISTHMUS WITH HIS PARENTS EXCEPT FOR THE TIME SPENT IN SCHOOL IN THE UNITED STATES. HE STATES IN HIS CLAIM LETTER THAT THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RECOGNIZED HIS RESIDENCE IN THAT STATE IN 1940 FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING ATTENDANCE AT THE STATE COLLEGE ON A TUITION FREE BASIS. THIS, HOWEVER, WOULD NOT APPEAR TO BE A FACT COMPELLING DETERMINATION THAT HIS LEGAL RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE WAS WASHINGTON RATHER THAN PENNSYLVANIA AT THE TIME OF HIS APPOINTMENT. YOU WILL NOTE IN THIS CONNECTION, THAT HE RETURNED TO WILLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA, ON TERMINATION OF HIS SERVICES.

THE MAJOR QUESTION INVOLVED IS AS TO WHETHER SECTION 4 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 9805 REQUIRES, IN CASES INVOLVING BENEFITS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 7 OF PUBLIC LAW 600, THAT THE AUTHORITY FOR PAYMENT THEREOF BE IN THE ORDER DIRECTING TRAVEL. DECISION ON THIS POINT IS REQUESTED SINCE, IN THIS AND OTHER CASES, BENEFITS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 7, PUBLIC LAW 600, WOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED UNDER PROPER TRAVEL ORDERS BUT FOR SOME DOUBT EXISTING AT THE TIME OF THE EMPLOYEE'S TERMINATION AS TO HIS BEING ENTITLED TO SUCH BENEFITS, OR BUT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR. IN SUCH CASES, IF IN ORDER, IT IS DESIRED TO ISSUE PROPER ORDERS WHEN THE DOUBT EXISTING AT THE TIME OF THE EMPLOYEE'S TERMINATION IS RESOLVED OR WHEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR IS DISCOVERED.

IRRESPECTIVE OF THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, IT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY OF THE PANAMA CANAL TO REQUIRE THAT THE AUTHORIZATION OF PAYMENT OF OR REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES INCURRED UNDER SECTION OF PUBLIC LAW 600 BE INCLUDED IN THE ORDER DIRECTING THE TRAVEL. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT SECTION 4 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 9805 NEED BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE THAT THE AUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 7, PUBLIC LAW 600 BENEFITS BE IN THE ORDER DIRECTING THE TRAVEL SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4, EXECUTIVE ORDER 9805, APPEAR TO RELATE PARTICULARLY TO CASES OF TRANSFER FROM ONE OFFICIAL STATION TO ANOTHER, THAT IS, TO CASES UNDER SECTION 1, PUBLIC LAW 600. THIS CONNECTION, THERE APPEARS FOR CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT SECTION 7 OF PUBLIC LAW 600, UNLIKE SECTION 1 THEREOF, DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE EXPENSES AUTHORIZED TO BE PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT THEREUNDER BE SO AUTHORIZED IN THE ORDER DIRECTING THE TRAVEL. NO SUCH REQUIREMENT APPEARS IN THE REGULATIONS, EXECUTIVE ORDER 9778, ORIGINALLY ISSUED UNDER SECTION 7, PUBLIC LAW 600, DECISION IS REQUESTED AS TO ITS APPLICABILITY TO AUTHORIZATIONS UNDER SECTION 7,PUBLIC LAW 600, SINCE SECTION 4 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 9778 PROVIDES THAT ON AND AFTER NOVEMBER 1, 1946, EXPENDITURES WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTIONS 2 AND 3 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 9778 SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 1, PUBLIC LAW 600.

THROUGH INADVERTENCE, A TRAVEL ORDER AUTHORIZING BENEFITS TO MR. FENTON UNDER SECTION 7, PUBLIC LAW 600, WAS ISSUED ON JANUARY 29, 1948. IF IT IS DECIDED THAT SECTION 4, EXECUTIVE ORDER 9805, REQUIRES THE AUTHORIZATION TO BE IN THE ORDER DIRECTING THE TRAVEL, COMPTROLLER'S LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1947, MIGHT BE CONSIDERED AS SUCH ORDER DIRECTING THE TRAVEL AS WOULD PERMIT PAYMENT OF BENEFITS UNDER THE GOVERNOR'S REGULATIONS OF APRIL 11, 1947, UPON DETERMINATION THAT MR. FENTON QUALIFIED UNDER PUBLIC LAW 600. SIMILAR AUTHORIZATION, HOWEVER, IS NOT OF RECORD IN OTHER PENDING CASES AND DECISION ON THE APPLICATION GENERALLY OF THE LIMITATION IN SECTION 4, EXECUTIVE ORDER 9805, IS REQUESTED.

IT WAS HELD IN 26 COMP. GEN. 488, 492:

WITH RESPECT TO QUESTION 2, THE TERM "ACTUAL RESIDENCE" AS USED IN SECTION 7 OF PUBLIC LAW 600, QUOTED IN YOUR LETTER, GENERALLY WOULD BE UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN THE PLACE AT WHICH THE APPOINTEE PHYSICALLY RESIDES AT THE TIME OF HIS APPOINTMENT. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT BELIEVED THAT THE TERM WAS INTENDED TO BE SO RESTRICTED UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES OUTLINED IN THE SIXTH PARAGRAPH OF YOUR LETTER, SUPRA, THE TERM "ACTUAL RESIDENCE" MAY BE HELD TO INCLUDE THE "LEGAL RESIDENCE" OR ,DOMICILE" OF SUCH AN EMPLOYEE. * * * ALSO, SEE QUESTION AND ANSWER NUMBER 10, 26 COMP. GEN. 488, AT PAGE 496.

UNDER THE FACTS STATED IT REASONABLY APPEARS THAT THE "LEGAL RESIDENCE" OR "DOMICILE" OF MR. FENTON AT THE TIME OF HIS APPOINTMENT WAS WILLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA, AND THAT ADDRESS MAY BE CONSIDERED AS HIS "ACTUAL RESIDENCE AT THE TIME OF ASSIGNMENT TO DUTY OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7 OF PUBLIC LAW 600.

THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9805, DATED NOVEMBER 25, 1946, ARE FOR APPLICATION IN CASES INVOLVING SECTION 7 OF PUBLIC LAW 600 PREVIOUSLY HAS NOT BEEN DIRECTLY CONSIDERED BY THIS OFFICE. HOWEVER, IN SEVERAL DECISIONS THIS OFFICE HAS HELD THAT PAYMENT OF EXPENSES ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 7 WAS PROPER IN CASES WHERE, UPON THE FACTS STATED, IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THERE COULD NOT BE ANY AUTHORITY "IN THE ORDER DIRECTING THE TRAVEL" AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 4. SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, QUESTION AND ANSWER 9, 26 COMP. GEN. 488, AT PAGE 495, AS FOLLOWS:

IT IS ASSUMED THAT EMPLOYEES WHO VOLUNTARILY RESIGNED AFTER 12 MONTHS' SERVICE AND RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE AND THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES ON APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE AND SUBSEQUENTLY RESIGNED WHILE IN THE UNITED STATES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENSES OF THEIR TRAVEL.

QUESTION 9: IN SUCH CASES WHERE THE EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD GOODS WERE LEFT BEHIND ON THE ISTHMUS AND REQUEST IS MADE WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN THE PRESIDENT'S REGULATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF AN EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD GOODS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE, MAY SUCH TRANSPORTATION BE PROVIDED?

THIS QUESTION IS ANSWERED, GENERALLY, IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, PROVIDING, OF COURSE, THAT WITH RESPECT TO THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES ON APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE AND SUBSEQUENTLY RESIGNED WHILE IN THE UNITED STATES, THERE HAS BEEN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STIPULATION IN THEIR CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT AS TO THE LENGTH OF TIME TO BE SERVED IN PANAMA. ALSO, SEE DECISION OF JANUARY 26, 1948, B 71059, 27 COMP. GEN. 394, WHICH HELD AS FOLLOWS, QUOTING FROM THE SYLLABUS:

AN EMPLOYEE ORIGINALLY APPOINTED ON A TEMPORARY BASIS FOR DUTY OUTSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES WHO, WHILE AT HIS OVERSEAS DUTY STATION, WAS APPOINTED ON A PERMANENT BASIS BY THE SAME AGENCY TO A DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT POSITION AT THE SAME GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION MAY BE REGARDED AS A NEW APPOINTEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE STATUTES OF AUGUST 2, 1946, ON WHOSE ACCOUNT TRANSPORTATION OF HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS MAY BE PAID PURSUANT TO SAID SECTION FROM THE PLACE OF ACTUAL RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES WHEREAT HIS FAMILY RESIDES TO THE PLACE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT OVERSEAS.

WHILE NEITHER OF THOSE DECISIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS IN ANY WAY DETERMINATIVE OF THE QUESTION NOW PRESENTED THEY DO FURNISH SOME INDICATION THAT SECTION 4 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 9805 IS NOT REQUIRED BY THIS OFFICE TO BE CONSIDERED AS APPLYING TO THOSE SITUATIONS WHICH IT REASONABLY WAS NOT INTENDED TO COVER.

SECTIONS 1 AND 7 OF PUBLIC LAW 600, APPROVED AUGUST 2, 1946, 60 STAT. 806, 808, PROVIDE:

THAT (A) UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE PRESIDENT MAY PRESCRIBE, ANY CIVILIAN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT WHO, IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT, IS TRANSFERRED FROM ONE OFFICIAL STATION TO ANOTHER, INCLUDING TRANSFER FROM ONE DEPARTMENT TO ANOTHER, FOR PERMANENT DUTY, SHALL, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED HEREIN, WHEN AUTHORIZED, IN THE ORDER DIRECTING THE TRAVEL, BY SUCH SUBORDINATE OFFICIAL OR OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT CONCERNED AS THE HEAD THEREOF MAY DESIGNATE FOR THE PURPOSE, BE ALLOWED AND PAID FROM GOVERNMENT FUNDS THE EXPENSES OF TRAVEL OF HIMSELF AND THE EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION OF HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY (OR A COMMUTATION THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 14, 1931) AND THE EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION, PACKING, CRATING, TEMPORARY STORAGE, DRAYAGE, AND UNPACKING OF HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS (NOT TO EXCEED SEVEN THOUSAND POUNDS IF UNCRATED OR EIGHT THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY POUNDS IF CRATED OR THE EQUIVALENT THEREOF WHEN TRANSPORTATION CHARGES ARE BASED ON CUBIC MEASUREMENT. * * *

SEC. 7. APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE AVAILABLE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT, FOR EXPENSES OF TRAVEL OF NEW APPOINTEES, EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION OF THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILIES AND EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION OF THEIR HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS FROM PLACES OF ACTUAL RESIDENCE AT TIME OF APPOINTMENT TO PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT OUTSIDE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, AND FOR SUCH EXPENSES ON RETURN OF EMPLOYEES FROM THEIR POSTS OF DUTY OUTSIDE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES TO THE PLACES OF THEIR ACTUAL RESIDENCE AT TIME OF ASSIGNMENT TO DUTY OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES: PROVIDED, THAT SUCH EXPENSES SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED NEW APPOINTEES UNLESS AND UNTIL THE PERSON SELECTED FOR APPOINTMENT SHALL AGREE IN WRITING TO REMAIN IN THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS FOLLOWING HIS APPOINTMENT, UNLESS SEPARATED FOR REASONS BEYOND HIS CONTROL. IN CASE OF A VIOLATION OF SUCH AGREEMENT ANY MONEYS EXPENDED BY THE UNITED STATES ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS A DEBT DUE BY THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED TO THE UNITED STATES. THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO APPROPRIATIONS FOR FOR THE FOREIGN SERVICE, STATE DEPARTMENT.

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9778 OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1946, CONTAINS INTERIM REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN SECTION 7 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 2, 1946, SUPRA, GOVERNING THE TRAVEL EXPENSES OF NEW APPOINTEES AND THE EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILIES AND EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS OF NEW APPOINTEES FROM PLACES OF ACTUAL RESIDENCE AT THE TIME OF APPOINTMENT TO PLACES OUTSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES AND SUCH EXPENSES OF RETURN OF EMPLOYEES FROM THEIR POSTS OF RESIDENCE AT THE TIME OF ASSIGNMENT TO DUTY OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. SECTION 4 OF THAT ORDER PROVIDES THAT BEGINNING NOVEMBER 1, 1946, SUCH EXPENDITURES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS "TO BE ISSUED UNDER AUTHORITY OF SECTION 1 OF THE AFORESAID ACT OF AUGUST 2, 1946.' SECTION 4 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 9805 OF NOVEMBER 25, 1946, ISSUED PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN THE ACT OF AUGUST 2, 1946, PUBLIC LAW 600, PROVIDES:

THE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES ALLOWABLE UNDER THESE REGULATIONS, WHEN AUTHORIZED, IN THE ORDER DIRECTING THE TRAVEL, BY SUCH SUBORDINATE OFFICIAL AS THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT CONCERNED MAY DESIGNATE, SHALL BE PAID IN CASE OF TRANSFER FROM ONE OFFICIAL STATION TO ANOTHER, INCLUDING TRANSFER FROM ONE DEPARTMENT TO ANOTHER, FROM PERMANENT DUTY, BUT IN NO CASE IN WHICH THE TRANSFER IS MADE PRIMARILY FOR THE CONVENIENCE OR BENEFIT OF THE EMPLOYEE OR AT HIS REQUEST. IN CASE OF TRANSFER FROM ONE DEPARTMENT TO ANOTHER SUCH EXPENSES SHALL BE PAID FROM THE FUNDS OF THE DEPARTMENT TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEE IS TRANSFERRED. ( ITALICS SUPPLIED.)

THAT SECTION IS CONCERNED PRIMARILY WITH PAYMENT OF EXPENSES INCIDENT TO TRANSFER AND WAS ISSUED PURSUANT TO AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN SECTION 1 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 2, 1946, RELATING TO TRANSFERS FROM ONE OFFICIAL STATION TO ANOTHER INCLUDING TRANSFERS FROM ONE DEPARTMENT TO ANOTHER FOR PERMANENT DUTY, RATHER THAN PURSUANT TO AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 7 RELATING TO THE EXPENSES OF TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION OF NEW APPOINTEES FROM PLACE OF ACTUAL RESIDENCE AT THE TIME OF APPOINTMENT TO PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT OUTSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES AND THE RETURN OF EMPLOYEES FROM THEIR POSTS OF DUTY OUTSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES TO THE PLACES OF THEIR ACTUAL RESIDENCE AT THE TIME OF ASSIGNMENT TO DUTY OUTSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES. THE SECTION SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED TO A SITUATION TO WHICH IT REASONABLY CAN BE CONCLUDED IT WAS NOT ADDRESSED. TRANSFERS FROM ONE OFFICIAL STATION TO ANOTHER ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE INCURRING OF TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 7 OF PUBLIC LAW 600 AND THAT SECTION CONTAINS NO SUCH LIMITATION (I.E., "WHEN AUTHORIZED, IN THE ORDER DIRECTING THE RAVEL") AS IS CONTAINED IN SECTION 1 OF PUBLIC LAW 600 AND SECTION 4 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9805. THEREFORE, IT REASONABLY CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9805 WERE NOT ADDRESSED TO THE INCURRING OF THE TYPE OF TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES WHICH ARE AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 7 OF THE ACT. THAT IS TO SAY, SECTION 4 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9805, SUPRA, IS ADDRESSED SOLELY TO THE EXPENSES OF TRANSFER AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 1 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 2, 1946, AND, THEREFORE, HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE EXPENSES OF TRAVEL OR TRANSPORTATION TO OR FROM POINTS OUTSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES WHICH ARE INCURRED AS INCIDENT TO EMPLOYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 7 OF THAT ACT.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A REGULATION SPECIFICALLY CONTROLLING I AM INCLINED TO HOLD THAT PROPER ORDERS NOW MAY BE ISSUED AUTHORIZING THE EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILIES AND THE EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS OR PERSONAL EFFECTS TO THE PLACES OF THEIR ACTUAL RESIDENCE AT THE TIME OF ASSIGNMENT TO DUTY OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OF THOSE FORMER EMPLOYEES OF THE PANAMA CANAL TO WHOM THE BENEFITS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 7 OF PUBLIC LAW 600 WOULD HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED IN PROPER TRAVEL ORDERS BUT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR OR THE DOUBT EXISTING AT THE TIME THE EMPLOYEES' SERVICES WERE TERMINATED AS TO THEIR BEING ENTITLED TO SUCH BENEFITS.

THE PAPERS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM OF MR. GEORGE F. FENTON ARE RETURNED HEREWITH AND, IF OTHERWISE CORRECT, THEY MAY BE PROCESSED FOR PAYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS DECISION.