B-134616, JAN. 28, 1958

B-134616, JAN. 28, 1958

TO MR. LESTER M. THOMPSON, AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICER, FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION:

YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 4, 1957, REQUESTS OUR DECISION WHETHER YOU MAY CERTIFY FOR PAYMENT THE ENCLOSED VOUCHER AND SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS (BUREAU SCHEDULE NO. 1862, AND BUREAU VOUCHER NOS. 22262 AND 23262) IN THE AMOUNT OF $516.32. THAT SUM COVERS THE OCTOBER 1957 TRAVEL EXPENSES OF WILLIAM H. AKARD ($305.20) AND J. A. MEREDITH ($211.12). THEIR TRAVEL ORDERS FOR THE YEAR JULY 1, 1957, TO JULY 1, 1958, AUTHORIZE TRAVEL THROUGHOUT THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION, AS MAY BE NECESSARY IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES.

YOU SAY YOU RECENTLY LEARNED THE TRAVEL VOUCHERS OF THESE EMPLOYEES DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL FACTS REGARDING ALL OF THE TRAVEL INVOLVED, AND THAT ALL OF THEIR TRAVEL WAS NOT REPORTED IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS AND THE FHA TRAVEL HANDBOOK, PARAGRAPHS 5811.2 AND 5811.3. THEREFORE, YOU SAY, MESSRS. AKARD AND AND MEREDITH WERE REQUESTED TO SUBMIT DETAILED STATEMENTS PERTAINING TO THEIR TRAVEL.

MR. AKARD'S RESIDENCE AT RUTLEDGE, TENNESSEE, IS APPROXIMATELY 30 MILES FROM THE CITY LIMITS OF KNOXVILLE ON A DIRECT ROUTE BETWEEN KNOXVILLE AND KINGSPORT, TENNESSEE, WHERE HE MAKES INSPECTIONS ON MONDAYS. MR. AKARD SAYS THAT ON FRIDAYS WHEN HE LEAVES THE KNOXVILLE OFFICE HE TAKES WITH HIM THE FILES AND PAPERS RELATING TO HIS WORK (TRAVEL AND TEMPORARY DUTY) IN KINGSPORT, BRISTOL, JOHNSON CITY, ELIZABETHTON, GREENEVILLE, MORRISTOWN, JEFFERSON CITY, OR OTHER TOWNS IN THE AREA. HE STOPS EN ROUTE AT HIS HOME IN RUTLEDGE FOR THE WEEKEND BUT DOES NOT RECORD THE MILEAGE BETWEEN KNOXVILLE AND RUTLEDGE AS HAVING BEEN TRAVELED ON FRIDAY. HENCE, ON MONDAY WHEN LEAVING RUTLEDGE HE DEDUCTS FROM HIS SPEEDOMETER READING THE 30 MILES AND APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR TRAVEL-TIME COVERING THE TRAVEL PERFORMED FROM KNOXVILLE THE PRECEDING FRIDAY. UPON RETURNING TO RUTLEDGE, WHEN HE FINISHES HIS OFFICIAL TRAVEL FOR THE WEEK IN THE AREA, HE STOPS AT HIS HOME IN RUTLEDGE AND ADDS THE 30-MILE DISTANCE AND MINIMUM ONE-HOUR TRAVEL TIME TO KNOXVILLE. HE ACTUALLY PROCEEDS TO KNOXVILLE ON FRIDAY MORNING. HE SAYS SUCH CONSTRUCTIVE REPORTING OF DISTANCE AND TIME IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRIOR ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS AND APPROVALS HE RECEIVED. IN VIEW OF THE MANNER IN WHICH HE REPORTS HIS TRAVEL, YOUR QUESTION ESSENTIALLY IS WHETHER MR. AKARD IS ENTITLED TO THE MILEAGE AND PER DIEM CLAIMED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OUTLINED AS HAVING BEEN INCURRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 3.5B (1) OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS AND NOT IN CONTRAVENTION OF OUR DECISION OF JUNE 4, 1957, B- 131810, 36 COMP. GEN. 795.

MR. MEREDITH'S CASE APPARENTLY IS SIMILAR TO THE MANNER OF REPORTING CONSTRUCTIVE MILEAGE AND TRAVEL TIME ALTHOUGH THIS IS NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR FROM THE RECORD. HIS RESIDENCE IS IN THE TRAVEL AREA NEAR JOHNSON CITY AND JONESBORO, TENNESSEE, APPROXIMATELY 100 MILES FROM KNOXVILLE. WHEN HE IS WORKING IN KNOXVILLE HE SLEEPS AT A HOTEL, USUALLY ON WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY NIGHTS. HE, ALSO, SAYS THAT WHEN HE LEAVES KNOXVILLE ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AFTER WORK HOURS HE TAKES WITH HIM THE FILES FOR THE NEXT WEEK'S WORK AND TRAVEL IN EAST TENNESSEE. IT APPEARS THAT AFTER LEAVING KNOXVILLE (FRIDAY AFTERNOONS) EACH OF HIS DAY'S TRAVEL IN THE NORTHEAST TENNESSEE AREA BEGAN AND ENDED AT HIS RESIDENCE--- WHICH HE STATES IS ON OAK GROVE ROAD, SIX MILES FROM JOHNSON CITY--- BUT THAT HE DOES NOT CHARGE THE MILEAGE FROM HIS RESIDENCE TO JOHNSON CITY OR TO OTHER DUTY POINTS WHEN HE STAYS OVERNIGHT AT HOME. YOU QUESTION WHETHER HE IS ENTITLED TO PER DIEM AT THE RATE OF $12 FOR SUCH TRAVEL AWAY FROM KNOXVILLE, ON THE GROUND THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS TRAVEL IN THE NORTHEAST AREA APPARENTLY REQUIRED LITTLE, IF ANY, ADDED EXPENSES OF SUBSISTENCE OVER THAT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED HAD HE BEEN PERFORMING DUTY AT HEADQUARTERS (KNOXVILLE). ALSO, AS IN THE CASE OF MR. AKARD, YOU QUESTION THE CONSTRUCTIVE MILEAGE CLAIMED BY MR. MEREDITH. FURTHER, FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, YOU SAY YOU ARE UNABLE TO VERIFY THEIR MILEAGE IN AND AROUND TEMPORARY DUTY POINTS OR THE EXACT MILEAGE INCURRED ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS.

EXAMINATION OF THE VOUCHERS AND THE TRAVELERS' EXPLANATIONS SHOWS THAT THE TRAVEL INVOLVED IS OF A REPETITIOUS NATURE--- TO AND FROM THE SAME MUNICIPALITIES, OR POINTS, AND IN AND AROUND THOSE DUTY POINTS. REGARDING THE REPETITIOUS POINT TO POINT TRAVEL, SEE 27 COMP. GEN. 32, 32 ID. 235 AND 33 ID. 278. THE MILEAGE CLAIMED ON THE SUBMITTED VOUCHERS FOR EACH POINT-TO-POINT TRIP APPARENTLY IS BASED UPON A PRIOR ACTUAL SPEEDOMETER READING OR IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF DETERMINATION FROM ROAD MAPS IN EACH INSTANCE AND WE DO NOT REGARD IT AS MANDATORY THAT ACTUAL SPEEDOMETER READINGS MUST BE GIVEN IN EVERY INSTANCE INVOLVING THE SAME POINTS WHEN THE DISTANCE ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO BE TRAVELED WOULD NOT VARY. THEREFORE, THE MILEAGE CLAIMED BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEE'S OFFICIAL STATION AND POINTS OF TEMPORARY DUTY EVEN THOUGH BASED ON CONSTRUCTIVE ODOMETER READINGS NEED NOT BE QUESTIONED IN THESE INSTANCES.

THE "IN AND AROUND" MILEAGE, WHICH IS ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED, WHEN REVIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF EXPLANATIONS BY THE CLAIMANTS IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF REASONABLE VERIFICATION AND LIKEWISE NEED NOT BE FURTHER QUESTIONED.

THE REASONS FOR THE RESORT TO A CONSTRUCTIVE REPORTING BASIS CONCERNING TRAVEL BETWEEN TEMPORARY DUTY STATIONS AND THE OFFICIAL STATION IS NOT APPARENT, UNLESS IT WAS THOUGHT THAT PART OF THE TRAVEL MIGHT BE VIEWED AS USUAL COMMUTING TRAVEL BETWEEN HOME AND PLACE OF BUSINESS AT THE OFFICIAL STATION, FOR WHICH NO MILEAGE WOULD BE ALLOWABLE. SINCE THE TRAVEL BETWEEN TEMPORARY DUTY STATION AND THE OFFICIAL STATION ACTUALLY WAS PERFORMED, RESORT TO ANY FICTION IN THESE CASES APPEARS TO BE UNNECESSARY. THE REPORTING METHOD USED, HOWEVER, NEED NOT BE VIEWED AS VITIATING THE VALIDITY OF THE CLAIMS FOR MILEAGE SINCE THE EMPLOYEES APPARENTLY WERE ACTING UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER OBJECTIONS THE MILEAGE IN THESE CASES MAY BE ALLOWED.

ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBSEQUENT OR FUTURE VOUCHERS WHICH DO NOT REPORT THE ACTUAL FACTS--- I.E., BONA FIDE ODOMETER READINGS AND BEGINNING AND ENDING TIME OF ACTUAL TRAVEL, AS REQUIRED BY REGULATIONS--- WILL BE SUBJECT TO EXCEPTION IN OUR AUDIT IF PAID AND, ACCORDINGLY, SHOULD NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.

REGARDING THE QUESTION RAISED BY YOU ON THE SUBMITTED VOUCHERS CONCERNING PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE, THAT CLAIMED BY MR. AKARD SEEMS TO BE FOUNDED IN LAW AND, IF CORRECT IN OTHER RESPECTS, MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT. IN MR. MEREDITH'S CASE, HOWEVER, THE REPORTED FACTS INDICATE THAT A PREPONDERANCE OF HIS TEMPORARY DUTY IS PERFORMED OUT OF HIS PLACE OF ABODE NEAR JOHNSON CITY, TENNESSEE, WHICH SUGGESTS THAT SUCH PLACE SHOULD BE REGARDED AS HIS OFFICIAL STATION FOR PER DIEM PURPOSES. IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF HIS CASE AND OF A DETERMINATION BASED ON THE FACTS, WHICH SHOULD BE REPORTED TO US, WE ARE UNABLE TO AUTHORIZE THE CERTIFICATION FOR PAYMENT OF THAT PART OF MR. MEREDITH'S VOUCHER. IF IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSIDERATION OF HIS PER DIEM AUTHORIZATION IT IS FOUND THAT HIS PLACE OF ABODE SHOULD BE REGARDED AS HIS OFFICIAL STATION FOR PER DIEM PURPOSES, THERE WOULD BE FOR CONSIDERATION SECTION 6.8 AND THE FIRST PROVISO OF SECTION 6.11 OF THE STANDARDIZED REGULATIONS.

THE VOUCHERS, AND SUBMITTED PAPERS, ARE RETURNED AND MAY BE CERTIFIED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING.