B-158797, JUN. 15, 1966

B-158797, JUN. 15, 1966

TO MR. ROBERT D. KIRKPATRICK:

WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 25, 1966, CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM FOR PER DIEM ALLOWANCE WHILE YOU WERE PERFORMING DUTY AT SOMERVILLE, TEXAS, AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY.

AS EXPLAINED TO YOU IN OUR DECISIONS OF APRIL 8 AND MAY 19, 1966, THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF RECORD HERE ESTABLISHES THAT SOMERVILLE, TEXAS (NOT FORT WORTH, TEXAS, THE DIVISIONAL HEADQUARTERS OF YOUR ACTIVITY), HAD PROPERLY BEEN DESIGNATED AS YOUR OFFICIAL DUTY STATION FOR THE PERIOD IN QUESTION. ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT THE TRAVEL ORDER DIRECTING YOUR TRAVEL FROM FORT WORTH TO SOMERVILLE DID NOT AUTHORIZE A PER DIEM ALLOWANCE EXCEPT FOR TRAVEL TIME, SECTION 6.8 OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS PER DIEM ALLOWANCE AT AN EMPLOYEE'S PERMANENT DUTY STATION. SEE ALSO SECTION 3 OF THE TRAVEL EXPENSE ACT OF 1949, AS AMENDED, 5 U.S.C. 836, WHICH AUTHORIZES THE PRESCRIBING OF A PER DIEM ALLOWANCE FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES ONLY WHEN THEY ARE "TRAVELING ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS AND AWAY FROM THEIR DESIGNATED POSTS OF DUTY; " AND SECTION 1.5 OF THE TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROVIDING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT ,DESIGNATED POST OF DUTY AND OFFICIAL STATION MEAN ONE AND THE SAME * *

WE HAVE CAREFULLY REVIEWED YOUR CLAIM IN THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE; AND YOUR PRESENT LETTER PRESENTS NOTHING NOT HERETOFORE CONSIDERED IN ARRIVING AT OUR CONCLUSION. THEREFORE, OUR PRIOR ACTION ON YOUR CLAIM IS SUSTAINED.

ANY FURTHER REQUEST FROM YOU FOR A REVIEW OF YOUR CLAIM, NOT SUPPORTED BY NEW AND SUBSTANTIAL ..END :