B-122558, JUL. 22, 1955

B-122558: Jul 22, 1955

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Shirley Jones
(202) 512-8156
jonessa@gao.gov

 

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

CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION: REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER OF JANUARY 12. THE EMPLOYEE STATED IN THE CASE THAT HE HAD REQUESTED THE CHANGE OF HEADQUARTERS THAT WAS ORDERED WHILE HE WAS IN THE UNITED STATES ON LEAVE FOR PERSONAL REASONS. PROVIDE THAT EXPENSES OF TRAVEL INCIDENT TO TRANSFER FROM ONE OFFICIAL STATION TO ANOTHER SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED IN ANY CASE "IN WHICH THE TRANSFER IS MADE PRIMARILY FOR THE CONVENIENCE OR BENEFIT OF THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OR AT HIS REQUEST. " PAYMENT OF THE EMPLOYEE'S TRAVELING EXPENSES TO THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT AUTHORIZED. IT WAS RECOGNIZED AT THE TIME THAT THERE WAS AN APPARENT CONFLICT BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEE'S STATEMENT AND THE STATEMENT IN THE TRAVEL ORDER THAT THE TRANSFER WAS NOT AT THE REQUEST OF THE EMPLOYEE.

B-122558, JUL. 22, 1955

TO HONORABLE F. B. LEE, ADMINISTRATOR, CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER OF JANUARY 12, 1955, FROM THE CHIEF, ACCOUNTING DIVISION, FORWARDING LETTER OF DECEMBER 21, 1954, FROM D. C. MORTER, AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICER, OF YOUR FORT WORTH, TEXAS, OFFICE, REQUESTING OUR DECISION RELATIVE TO A VOUCHER IN FAVOR OF EDWARD J. GILLET.

OUR DECISION OF MARCH 3, 1955, B-122558, RENDERED TO THE CERTIFYING OFFICER, ALLOWED REIMBURSEMENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES ACT OF 1946, AS AMENDED, FOR OTHERWISE PROPER TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES, FROM SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO, OF THE WIFE AND SON OF EDWARD J. GILLET. THE EMPLOYEE STATED IN THE CASE THAT HE HAD REQUESTED THE CHANGE OF HEADQUARTERS THAT WAS ORDERED WHILE HE WAS IN THE UNITED STATES ON LEAVE FOR PERSONAL REASONS. ACCORDINGLY, SINCE SECTION 1 OF THE ACT AND SECTION 4 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9805, AS AMENDED, PROVIDE THAT EXPENSES OF TRAVEL INCIDENT TO TRANSFER FROM ONE OFFICIAL STATION TO ANOTHER SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED IN ANY CASE "IN WHICH THE TRANSFER IS MADE PRIMARILY FOR THE CONVENIENCE OR BENEFIT OF THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OR AT HIS REQUEST," PAYMENT OF THE EMPLOYEE'S TRAVELING EXPENSES TO THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT AUTHORIZED. IT WAS RECOGNIZED AT THE TIME THAT THERE WAS AN APPARENT CONFLICT BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEE'S STATEMENT AND THE STATEMENT IN THE TRAVEL ORDER THAT THE TRANSFER WAS NOT AT THE REQUEST OF THE EMPLOYEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLARIFICATION OF THE MATTER, HOWEVER, FAVORABLE ACTION WAS NOT TAKEN CONCERNING SUCH EXPENSES.

WE HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY THE HONORABLE HAROLD D. DONOHUE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, TO REVIEW THAT PART OF OUR DECISION WHICH DISALLOWED THE EMPLOYEE'S TRAVELING EXPENSES. IN ORDER THAT APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION MAY BE GIVEN THIS MATTER, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO ADVISE US WHETHER THE CHANGE IN HEADQUARTERS HERE INVOLVED ACTUALLY WAS FOR THE CONVENIENCE OR BENEFIT OF THE GOVERNMENT. YOUR REPORT SHOULD INCLUDE ALL PERTINENT FACTS IN THE CASE, INCLUDING THOSE WHICH MAY INDICATE THAT THE TRANSFER AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE WAS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE RESTRICTION IN THE LAW CONCERNING TRANSFERS AT THE REQUEST OF THE EMPLOYEE.

Jan 25, 2021

Jan 22, 2021

Jan 21, 2021

Jan 19, 2021

Looking for more? Browse all our products here