B-147175, AUG. 27, 1962
Highlights
FURTHER CONCERNS THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR TRAVEL CLAIM WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DECISIONS OF MAY 23. OUR DECISIONS CONSIDERED EVERY ASPECT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH HAVE A MATERIAL BEARING UPON YOUR CLAIM. WAS CONSULTED AS SUGGESTED BY YOU. OUR AUDITORS REPORT THAT BOTH HE AND THE PRESENT PERSONNEL MANAGER OF THE AGENCY WERE INTERVIEWED. AS TO WHETHER CHANGE OF YOUR PERMANENT DUTY STATION WAS DISCUSSED WITH YOU BY OFFICIALS OF THE AGENCY. WE ARE ADVISED SUCH A DISCUSSION IS NORMAL PROCEDURE. WAS DISCUSSED WITH YOU AT THAT TIME. YOUR STATION WAS CHANGED BACK TO NEW YORK BECAUSE YOU DID NOT WANT TO MOVE TO NEW JERSEY. THAT IT WAS AN ATTEMPT BY THE AGENCY TO PARTIALLY REIMBURSE YOU.
B-147175, AUG. 27, 1962
TO MR. GEORGE BAYRON:
YOUR LETTER OF JULY 24, 1962, FURTHER CONCERNS THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR TRAVEL CLAIM WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DECISIONS OF MAY 23, 1962, OCTOBER 9, 1961, AND DECEMBER 7, 1961.
OUR DECISIONS CONSIDERED EVERY ASPECT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH HAVE A MATERIAL BEARING UPON YOUR CLAIM, AND SET FORTH THE REASONS FOR DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM. HENCE, THEY NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE.
HOWEVER, YOU ASK WHETHER MR. HARRY BRIGHTMAN, BRANCH CHIEF DURING THE PERIOD OF YOUR CLAIM, WAS CONSULTED AS SUGGESTED BY YOU. OUR AUDITORS REPORT THAT BOTH HE AND THE PRESENT PERSONNEL MANAGER OF THE AGENCY WERE INTERVIEWED. THE REPORT SHOWS THAT AT THE TIME MR. BRIGHTMAN LEFT THE AGENCY, AROUND FEBRUARY 1960, THE TRAVEL SITUATION HAD NOT BEEN RESOLVED OR AS TO WHAT REIMBURSEMENT YOU COULD BE GIVEN. AS TO WHETHER CHANGE OF YOUR PERMANENT DUTY STATION WAS DISCUSSED WITH YOU BY OFFICIALS OF THE AGENCY, WE ARE ADVISED SUCH A DISCUSSION IS NORMAL PROCEDURE. THE PERSONNEL MANAGER ADVISED US THAT THE PERSONNEL ACTION DATED NOVEMBER 16, 1959, CHANGING YOUR STATION FROM NEW YORK TO NEW JERSEY, WAS DISCUSSED WITH YOU AT THAT TIME. ALSO, HE EXPLAINED THAT ON FEBRUARY 1, 1960, YOUR STATION WAS CHANGED BACK TO NEW YORK BECAUSE YOU DID NOT WANT TO MOVE TO NEW JERSEY, AND THAT IT WAS AN ATTEMPT BY THE AGENCY TO PARTIALLY REIMBURSE YOU--- TO THE EXTENT OF COST OF COMMON CARRIER FROM NEW YORK TO TETERBORO, NEW JERSEY--- BUT THAT YOU REFUSED TO ACCEPT THIS CHANGE AND MADE NO CLAIM ON THE AGENCY AFTER FEBRUARY 1, 1960, FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF YOUR TRAVEL COSTS. AS TO THE OCCASIONS WHEREIN OTHER EMPLOYEES ARE REIMBURSED ON A MILEAGE BASIS, IT APPEARS THAT SUCH IS AUTHORIZED BECAUSE CAR POOLS WERE ORGANIZED FOR THREE OR MORE EMPLOYEES PERFORMING DAILY TRAVEL TO NEW JERSEY.
GENERALLY, THE OFFICIAL OR PERMANENT DUTY STATION OF AN EMPLOYEE IS TO BE ESTABLISHED ON FACTS AND IS NOT DONE SOLELY BY ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGNATION, AND AN EMPLOYEE'S EXPENSES OF DAILY COMMUTING TO HIS DUTY STATION ARE NOT REIMBURSABLE. THUS, BASED UPON THE RECORDS, WE MUST REITERATE THAT ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM IS NOT WARRANTED AND FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE REPEATING FACTS ALREADY CONSIDERED BY US WILL SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE.