B-166181, APR. 1, 1969

B-166181, APR. 1, 1969

TO MR. LOUIS B. ANDERSON:

WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 12, 1969, YOUR REFERENCE 6540, BY WHICH YOU REQUEST OUR ADVANCE DECISION WHETHER YOU MAY PROPERLY CERTIFY FOR PAYMENT THREE VOUCHERS OF MR. EDSEL L. CORPE, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOR CERTAIN REIMBURSEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH HIS TRANSFERS FROM MISSOULA, MONTAN, TO WASHINGTON, D.C., AND THENCE TO VIENTIANE, LAOS, WHICH TOOK PLACE IN DECEMBER 1968.

ON OR ABOUT OCTOBER 11, 1968, WHILE EMPLOYED BY THE FOREST SERVICE IN MISSOULA, MR. CORPE ACCEPTED AN ASSIGNMENT TO LAOS WITH THE DIVISION OF INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY. PRIOR TO REPORTING TO VIENTIANE, MR. CORPE WAS ASSIGNED, TEMPORARILY, TO WASHINGTON, EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 18, FOR ORIENTATION AND TRAINING. SECURITY AND HEALTH CLEARANCES WERE REQUIRED BEFORE MR. CORPE COULD PROCEED TO LAOS AND IT WAS CONTEMPLATED THAT IF SUCH CLEARANCES WOULD NOT BE OBTAINED HE WOULD BE ASSIGNED TO A PERMANENT POSITION WITH THE DIVISION OF INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY IN WASHINGTON. EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 1, 1968, WHILE MR. CORPE WAS ON TEMPORARY DUTY IN WASHINGTON, IT WAS DECIDED TO TRANSFER HIM TO WASHINGTON PENDING RECEIPT OF CLEARANCES AND HE WAS NOTIFIED ON DECEMBER 3 THAT ACTION HAD BEEN TAKEN ACCORDINGLY. ON DECEMBER 18 THE REQUIRED CLEARANCES WERE RECEIVED AND THE TRANSFER TO LAOS WAS AUTHORIZED. MR. CORPE DEPARTED WASHINGTON ON DECEMBER 19 FOR VIENTIANE, LAOS, WITH A STOPOVER AT MISSOULA. PRIOR TO HIS INITIAL DEPARTURE FROM MISSOULA MR. CORPE HAD SOLD HIS RESIDENCE AT THAT PLACE RETAINING POSSESSION THEREOF UNTIL DECEMBER 13, 1968. HIS FAMILY REMAINED IN MISSOULA WHILE HE WAS IN WASHINGTON OCCUPYING TEMPORARY QUARTERS AFTER THEY MOVED OUT OF THE SOLD RESIDENCE.

THE CLAIMS PRESENTED BY MR. CORPE ARE FOR THE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE ALLOWANCE, REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COSTS OF SELLING THE RESIDENCE IN MISSOULA, AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES WHILE HE AND HIS FAMILY OCCUPIED TEMPORARY QUARTERS IN WASHINGTON AND MISSOULA. THE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION COST INCIDENT TO MR. CORPE'S DUTY IN LAOS ARE TO BE REIMBURSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE ACT OF 1946, AS AMENDED, CHAPTER 14, TITLE 22, U.S. CODE, PARTICULARLY SECTION 911 OF THAT ACT, 22 U.S.C. 1136, AND NOT UNDER 5 U.S.C. 5722, 5724, AND 5724A. THEREFORE, IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT MR. CORPE IN FACT TRANSFERRED DIRECTLY FROM MISSOULA TO LAOS HE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO PAYMENT ON THE VOUCHERS PRESENTED SINCE THEY ARE ALL PREDICATED ON PROVISIONS OF 5 U.S.C. 5724A. SEE 5 U.S.C. 5724 (G).

MR. CORPE WAS OFFICIALLY TRANSFERRED FROM MISSOULA TO WASHINGTON BY PERSONNEL ACTION DATED DECEMBER 1, 1968. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCIDENT TO THAT TRANSFER WAS AUTHORIZED BY TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION WO 124, DECEMBER 3, 1968, WHICH WAS EFFECTIVE WHILE HE WAS ON TEMPORARY DUTY IN WASHINGTON PRIOR TO RECEIVING SECURITY AND MEDICAL CLEARANCE FOR ASSIGNMENT TO LAOS. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE FILE WHICH EXPLAINS THE REASONS OR NEED FOR THAT TRANSFER APART FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY WHICH APPEARS TO BE BASED UPON THE IMPRESSION THAT THE TRANSFER OF MR. CORPE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION OF THE OFFICE IN WASHINGTON REQUIRED THAT HIS OFFICIAL STATION BE CHANGED TO WASHINGTON. FURTHER, THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THE FILE THAT MR. CORPE WAS EXPECTED TO REMAIN IN WASHINGTON FOR A PERIOD OF TIME SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A CHANGE OF HIS OFFICIAL STATION TO THAT PLACE. WE DO NOT VIEW THE UNCERTAINTY WITH REGARD TO THE TIME THE CLEARANCES WOULD BE OBTAINED OR THE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY MIGHT BE DENIED AS SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR THE TRANSFER, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE COSTS INVOLVED IN A TRANSFER OF STATION. SEE IN THAT CONNECTION SECTION 6.2D OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS.

IN CASES INVOLVING THE PAYMENT OF PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE, WE HAVE HELD THAT AN AGENCY MAY NOT DESIGNATE AN EMPLOYEE'S OFFICIAL DUTY STATION AT SOME PLACE OTHER THAN THE PLACE AT WHICH HE IS EXPECTED TO PERFORM THE PREPONDERANCE OF HIS DUTIES IN ORDER TO PAY HIM PER DIEM AT SUCH PLACE. 31 COMP. GEN. 289; 32 ID. 87. A SIMILAR RULE MUST BE APPLIED IN THE CASE OF TRANSFERS. THUS, AN EMPLOYEE MAY NOT PROPERLY BE TRANSFERRED TO A PLACE AT WHICH HE IS NOT EXPECTED TO REMAIN FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING HIS ENTITLEMENT TO TRAVEL, TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSFER ALLOWANCES. ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS PRESENTED WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE FOREST SERVICE HAD AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER MR. CORPE TO WASHINGTON AND AUTHORIZE HIM THE BENEFITS OF 5 U.S.C. 5724A WHEN IT WAS CONTEMPLATED THAT HE WOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO LAOS AFTER A RELATIVELY SHORT STAY IN WASHINGTON.

IN THAT CONNECTION WE NOTE THAT MR. CORPE SOLD HIS RESIDENCE IN MISSOULA BEFORE IT WAS DECIDED TO TRANSFER HIM TO WASHINGTON. UNDER THE LAW AND REGULATIONS WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED APPLICABLE AT THE TIME HE SOLD THE RESIDENCE -- REGULATIONS GOVERNING TRAVEL OF FOREIGN SERVICE PERSONNEL -- REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COSTS INVOLVED IN THAT SALE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED.

FOR THE REASONS STATED THE VOUCHERS WHICH ARE RETURNED HEREWITH MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT. MR. CORPE MAY BE ALLOWED PER DIEM FOR THE FULL PERIOD OF HIS STAY IN WASHINGTON AND FOR SUCH TIME AS HE WAS EN ROUTE TO LAOS, EXCLUDING THE DAYS HE SPENT IN MISSOULA, IF OTHERWISE PROPER.