Skip to main content

B-170589, NOV. 13, 1970

B-170589 Nov 13, 1970
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

INCLUDING A "PRINCESS" TELEPHONE WITH SPRING CORD INSTALLED IN NEW HOME NEED NOT HAVE THE EXPENSE OF SUCH ITEMS REGARDED AS INCURRED FOR REASON OF PERSONAL TASTE OR PREFERENCE. SINCE IT IS SHOWN THAT THE ITEMS WERE SIMILAR TO THOSE IN HIS FORMER RESIDENCE THE EXPENSES ARE REIMBURSABLE UNDER SEC. 3.1A OF BOB CIRCULAR NO. ALTHOUGH THE FEE FOR A DOG LICENSE IS NOT ON EXPENSE OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY AS DEFINED IN SEC. 1.2D OF BOB CIR. IT IS SIMILAR TO OTHER FEES ALLOWABLE UNDER SEC. 3.1 AND THEREFORE REIMBURSEMENT IS PROPER. THE CHARGE FOR CONNECTING A WATER SOFTENER UNIT IS NOT REIMBURSABLE UNDER 13 OF BOB CIR. WHICH WAS FORWARDED HERE ON AUGUST 11. KORNREICH WAS PAID $45 ON A SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM PRESENTED BY HIM ON ACCOUNT OF FIVE ITEMS OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES AGGREGATING $128 AND INCURRED BY HIM INCIDENT TO THE MOVEMENT.

View Decision

B-170589, NOV. 13, 1970

TRANSFERS - MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES - TELEPHONE INSTALLATION - DOG LICENSE - SEWER CONNECTION DECISION CONCERNING REIMBURSABILITY OF CERTAIN RELOCATION EXPENSES INCURRED BY NASA EMPLOYEE, TRANSFERRED FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., TO MOFFETT FIELD, CALIF. TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEE WHO HAD ONE-PARTY TELEPHONE LINE WITH THREE EXTENSIONS, INCLUDING A "PRINCESS" TELEPHONE WITH SPRING CORD INSTALLED IN NEW HOME NEED NOT HAVE THE EXPENSE OF SUCH ITEMS REGARDED AS INCURRED FOR REASON OF PERSONAL TASTE OR PREFERENCE, BUT SINCE IT IS SHOWN THAT THE ITEMS WERE SIMILAR TO THOSE IN HIS FORMER RESIDENCE THE EXPENSES ARE REIMBURSABLE UNDER SEC. 3.1A OF BOB CIRCULAR NO. A-56. ALTHOUGH THE FEE FOR A DOG LICENSE IS NOT ON EXPENSE OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY AS DEFINED IN SEC. 1.2D OF BOB CIR. NO. A-56, IT IS SIMILAR TO OTHER FEES ALLOWABLE UNDER SEC. 3.1 AND THEREFORE REIMBURSEMENT IS PROPER. HOWEVER, THE CHARGE FOR CONNECTING A WATER SOFTENER UNIT IS NOT REIMBURSABLE UNDER 13 OF BOB CIR. NO. A-56 WHICH LISTS AS NONREIMBURSABLE ITEMS COSTS FOR REMODELING OR MODERNIZING LIVING QUARTERS.

TO MR. RALPH F. SHAWLEE:

WE AGAIN REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 31, 1970, FILE REFERENCE AF:202 10, WITH ENCLOSURES, WHICH WAS FORWARDED HERE ON AUGUST 11, 1970, BY THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON D. C., AND IN WHICH YOU REQUEST OUR DECISION AS TO WHETHER YOU MAY CERTIFY FOR PAYMENT A RECLAIM VOUCHER IN FAVOR OF MR. DONALD B. KORNREICH, AN EMPLOYEE OF AMES RESEARCH CENTER, TO COVER REIMBURSEMENT OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES INCURRED BY HIM INCIDENT TO HIS TRANSFER FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., TO MOFFETT FIELD, CALIFORNIA, PURSUANT TO TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION DATED NOVEMBER 24, 1969.

THE COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS ACCOMPANYING YOUR LETTER SHOW UNDER SECTION 3.1 OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, AS AMENDED JUNE 26, 1969, MR. KORNREICH WAS PAID $45 ON A SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM PRESENTED BY HIM ON ACCOUNT OF FIVE ITEMS OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES AGGREGATING $128 AND INCURRED BY HIM INCIDENT TO THE MOVEMENT. THE BALANCE OF $83 WAS DISALLOWED IN CONNECTION WITH THREE OF THE ITEMS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

"DESCRIPTION DISALLOWED EXPLANATION

CHARGE FOR CONNECTING PACIFIC TELEPHONE STANDARD

TELEPHONE SERVICE $35.00 CONNECTION CHARGE IS $10.00

SERVICE CHARGE FOR CG DECISION B-164111

CONNECTING WATER 45.00

SOFTENER UNIT

DOG LICENSE 3.00 BUREAU OF BUDGET CIRCULAR

$83.00 A-56, REVISED JUNE, 1969

ATTACHMENT A, SECTION I,

FINES 'IMMEDIATE FAMILY'"

PAR. 1.1, SUB PARA D, DE-

IN SUPPORT OF THE ITEM COVERING THE TELEPHONE INSTALLATION CHARGE, MR. KORNREICH SUBMITTED A LETTER DATED JUNE 30, 1970, FROM THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, WHICH CONTAINS A BREAKDOWN OF THAT CHARGE AS FOLLOWS:

1 PARTY-LINE $10.00 BASIC INSTALLATION FEE

3 EXTENSIONS $15.00

1 PRINCESS $ 5.00

1 9 FOOT SPRING CORD $ 7.50

1 13 FOOT CORD $ 7.50

$45.00 ALSO, WITH REGARD TO THIS ITEM YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR LETTER THAT MR. KORNREICH STATED THAT THE ONE-PARTY LINE WITH THREE EXTENSIONS, INCLUDING A "PRINCESS" TELEPHONE WITH TWO SPRING CORDS, IS SIMILAR TO THE TELEPHONES WHICH HE HAD AT HIS RESIDENCE AT HIS PREVIOUS PERMANENT DUTY STATION.

YOUR FIRST QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL TELEPHONE EXPENSES MAY BE PAID UNDER SECTION 3.1A OF CIRCULAR NO. A-56 OR WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 3.1C AS BEING EXPENSES INCURRED FOR REASONS OF PERSONAL TASTE OR PREFERENCE. SECTION 3.1A EXPLAINS THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ALLOWANCE AUTHORIZED BY SECTIONS 3.2 AND 3.3 IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING VARIOUS CONTINGENT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH DISCONTINUING RESIDENCE AT ONE LOCATION AND ESTABLISHING RESIDENCE AT A NEW OFFICIAL STATION.

IN A DECISION DATED JANUARY 19, 1970, B-168582, COPY ENCLOSED, INVOLVING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, AN AGGREGATE TELEPHONE INSTALLATION CHARGE OF $37.50 (CHARGE FOR CONNECTING ($7.50); CHARGE FOR TRIMLINE TELEPHONE ($5.00); CHARGE FOR TOUCHTONE ($5.00); AND CHARGE FOR JACKS ($20.00)), WE SAID THAT EXPENSES INCURRED FOR REASONS OF PERSONAL TASTE OR PREFERENCE AND NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE MOVE ARE NOT ALLOWABLE. FOR THAT REASON, WE CONCLUDED THAT UNDER THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 3.1C OF CIRCULAR NO. A-56 THE CHARGES FOR THE TRIMLINE TELEPHONE, TOUCHTONE, AND JACKS WERE FOR DISALLOWANCE AND THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 3.1B(1) OF THE CIRCULAR THE CHARGE FOR CONNECTING THE TELEPHONE WAS AN ALLOWABLE ITEM. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE COVERED BY THAT DECISION THE EMPLOYEE HAD RETURNED FROM AN OVERSEAS ASSIGNMENT AND THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT HE HAD SIMILAR TELEPHONES AND TELEPHONE ACCESSORIES AND CONNECTIONS AT HIS FORMER RESIDENCE. SINCE MR. KORNREICH ASSERTS THAT THE TELEPHONES AND ACCESSORIES IN HIS NEW RESIDENCE ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE IN HIS FORMER RESIDENCE, WE WILL CONSIDER SUCH TELEPHONES AND ACCESSORIES AS REPLACEMENT ITEMS. THEREFORE, WE REGARD MR. KORNREICH AS ENTITLED TO BE REIMBURSED FOR THOSE ITEMS AND YOUR FIRST QUESTION IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

YOUR SECOND QUESTION CONCERNS MR. KORNREICH'S RECLAIM OF THE DOG LICENSE FEE OF $3. IN MENTIONING THAT THIS ITEM HAD BEEN DISALLOWED BECAUSE IT IS NOT AN EXPENSE OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY AS DEFINED IN SECTION 1.2D OF THE CIRCULAR, YOU ASK WHETHER IT CAN BE PAID UNDER SECTION 3.1B(6) AS AN ADDITIONAL LICENSE REQUIREMENT BASED UPON THE CHANGE OF STATION.

IT IS OUR VIEW THAT A DOG LICENSE FEE IS ALLOWABLE AS A MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE ITEM ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS SIMILAR TO OTHER FEES WHICH ARE ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 3.1 OF THE CIRCULAR AS INCIDENT TO THE RELOCATION OF A RESIDENCE IN ANOTHER STATE. YOUR SECOND QUESTION IS ANSWERED ACCORDINGLY.

WE MAY ADD THAT THE SERVICE CHARGE OF $45 FOR CONNECTING THE WATER SOFTENER UNIT WAS PROPERLY DISALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF OUR DECISION OF JUNE 10, 1958, B-164111, IN WHICH WE HELD THAT THE COST FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A WATER SOFTENER WAS NOT REIMBURSABLE IN VIEW OF SECTION 3.1C(12) OF CIRCULAR NO. A-56. THAT SUBSECTION, WHICH IS NOW SUBSECTION "(13)" OF THE AMENDED CIRCULAR, LISTED AS NONREIMBURSABLE COSTS THOSE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH STRUCTURAL ALTERATION, REMODELING OR MODERNIZING OF LIVING QUARTERS.

THE VOUCHER IS RETURNED HEREWITH TOGETHER WITH SUPPORTING PAPERS FOR HANDLING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs