B-168855, MAR. 24, 1970

B-168855, MAR. 24, 1970

SUBSISTENCE--PER DIEM--DELAYS TO AVOID TRAVEL AFTER DUTY HOURS EMPLOYEE WHO COMPLETED TEMPORARY TOUR OF DUTY AT 4:45 P.M. OCT. 1, BUT, DELAYED RETURN TO HEADQUARTERS BY PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE UNTIL FOLLOWING MORNING, EVEN THOUGH ENTIRE TRIP COULD HAVE BEEN REASONABLY ACCOMPLISHED WITHIN 1 DAY FOR COMPARATIVE COST PURPOSES, MAY HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE COST OF TRAVEL RECOMPUTED ON BASIS OF LEAVING TEMPORARY STATION BY COMMON CARRIER MORNING OF OCT. 2 SINCE IT WAS NOT UNREASONABLE FOR EMPLOYEE, IN LIGHT OF REGULATIONS, TO HAVE RETURNED FOLLOWING MORNING TO OBVIATE AT LEAST 3 HOURS' TRAVEL DURING OFF-DUTY HOURS. CF 46 COMP. GEN. 425.

TO MR. DONALD E. MULDOON:

YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 12, 1970, REFERENCE 6AF, REQUESTS A DECISION ON THE APPLICALILITY OF SECTION 3.5C (2) C OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS (SGTR) TO A RECLAIM VOUCHER SUBMITTED BY MR. JAMES B. THOMAS.

MR. THOMAS BEGAN TRAVEL FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1 AT 8:15 A.M. HE TRAVELED BY PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE FOR HIS OWN CONVENIENCE. HE COMPLETED HIS DUTY AT 4:45 P.M. AND RETURNED TO SAN FRANCISCO THE FOLLOWING DAY WITH DEPARTURE FROM FRESNO AT 8:10 A.M. AND ARRIVAL AT HIS RESIDENCE IN SAN FRANCISCO AT 12:10 P.M. ACCORDING TO THE RECLAIM VOUCHER MR. THOMAS WAS ON DUTY AT THE SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE FROM 1 P.M. UNTIL 4:45 P.M. ON OCTOBER 2. HE CLAIMED $20 SUBSISTENCE FOR 5 QUARTER DAYS AT $4 PER QUARTER DAY.

MR. THOMAS STATES THAT RETURN TO HIS HEADQUARTERS DUTY STATION WAS NOT REQUIRED UNTIL OCTOBER 2. HE BASES HIS CLAIM ON FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL LETTER NO. 550-52 WHICH WAS ISSUED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ON FEBRUARY 5, 1969, TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON SECTION 550.112 (E) OF THE COMMISSION'S REGULATION GOVERNING PAY FOR TIME IN A TRAVEL STATUS.

YOU DETERMINED THAT THE FRESNO TRIP BY MR. THOMAS COULD HAVE BEEN REASONABLY ACCOMPLISHED WITHIN ONE DAY FOR COMPARATIVE COST PURPOSES. ACCORDING TO YOUR PRESENTATION, MR. THOMAS COULD HAVE ARRIVED AT HIS RESIDENCE BY 8 P.M. ON OCTOBER 1 BY FLYING FROM FRESNO ON A FLIGHT SCHEDULED FOR DEPARTURE AT 6 P.M. HIS TOTAL TRAVEL PERIOD AS CONSTRUCTED WOULD HAVE BEEN SLIGHTLY OVER 12 HOURS. ACCORDINGLY, YOU ALLOWED $6 (3/4 DAY AT $8) OF THE $20 CLAIMED FOR SUBSISTENCE. SEE SECTION 6.2 OF SGTR. ALSO, MR. THOMAS WAS CHARGED 4 HOURS ANNUAL LEAVE FOR OCTOBER 2.

YOUR DETERMINATION, IN PART, IS BASED ON SGTR 3.5C (2) C, WHICH READS:

"IN MAKING THE FOREGOING CONSTRUCTIVE COST COMPARISONS OF TRANSPORTATION AND PER DIEM, SCHEDULED DEPARTURES AND ARRIVALS OF PLANES, TRAINS, AND BUSES AT UNREASONABLE HOURS WILL BE DISREGARDED. (FOR THIS PURPOSE, 'UNREASONABLE HOURS' MEANS THOSE WHICH WOULD UNDULY INCONVENIENCE THE TRAVELER OR ADVERSELY AFFECT HIS SAFETY, OR WHICH WOULD RESULT IN UNDULY INCREASING THE CONSTRUCTIVE PER DIEM.)"

YOU ASK (1) WHETHER THE HOUR OF 8 P.M. FOR ARRIVAL AT MR. THOMAS' RESIDENCE IS UNREASONABLE AND (2) WHETHER YOU SHOULD USE SGTR OR ALTER YOUR METHOD OF AUDITING TRAVEL VOUCHERS AS A RESULT OF FPM LTR NO. 550 52.

AS NOTED ABOVE, FPM LTR NO. 550-52 WAS ISSUED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IN CONNECTION WITH ITS REGULATIONS GOVERNING PAY FOR TIME IN A TRAVEL STATUS. THE COMMISSION'S LETTER IMPLEMENTS AN EXPRESSED CONGRESSIONAL INTENT THAT EMPLOYEES GENERALLY SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO TRAVEL ON THEIR TIME OFF. IT SETS FORTH THE BASIC GUIDELINES UNDER WHICH EMPLOYEES WILL BE COMPENSATED FOR TRAVEL TIME OUTSIDE THEIR REGULAR HOURS OF DUTY.

SECTION 610.123 OF THE FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL, SUPP. 990-1 RELATING TO TRAVEL ON OFFICIAL TIME PROVIDES THAT:

"INSOFAR AS PRACTICABLE TRAVEL DURING NONDUTY HOURS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED OF AN EMPLOYEE. WHEN IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THIS BE REQUIRED AND THE EMPLOYEES MAY NOT BE PAID OVERTIME UNDER SECTION 550.112 (E) OF THIS CHAPTER THE OFFICIAL CONCERNED SHALL RECORD HIS REASONS FOR ORDERING TRAVEL AT THOSE HOURS AND SHALL, UPON REQUEST, FURNISH A COPY OF HIS STATEMENT TO THE EMPLOYEE CONCERNED."

IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INDICATION THAT MR. THOMAS WAS REQUIRED TO BE AT HIS HEADQUARTERS DUTY STATION ON THE MORNING OF OCTOBER 2, IT DOES NOT APPEAR UNREASONABLE FOR HIM, IN LIGHT OF THE CITED REGULATIONS, TO HAVE LEFT FRESNO ON THE MORNING OF OCTOBER 2 RATHER THAN AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS OCTOBER 1 TO OBVIATE AT LEAST 3 HOURS OF TRAVEL DURING OFF DUTY HOURS. SEE, HOWEVER, OUR DECISION AT 46 COMP. GEN. 425, WHEREIN WE CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS NOT REASONABLE TO DELAY RETURN TRAVEL OVER A WEEKEND FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING TRAVEL DURING OFF-DUTY HOURS.

THE CONSTRUCTIVE COST OF MR. THOMAS' TRAVEL MAY BE RECOMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF HIS LEAVING FRESNO BY COMMON CARRIER ON THE MORNING OF OCTOBER 2 (WITH APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENT TO HIS LEAVE RECORD), AND WE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO OBJECT TO PAYMENT ON THAT BASIS.

CONCERNING THE QUESTION YOU RAISE AS TO HOW TRAVEL VOUCHERS SHOULD BE AUDITED, WE SUGGEST THAT YOU SEEK GUIDANCE WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANNELS OF YOUR AGENCY IN LIGHT OF POLICIES REGARDING TRAVEL WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED THERE. ANY DOUBTS YOU MIGHT HAVE IN THE FUTURE WITH RESPECT TO SPECIFIC VOUCHERS BEFORE YOU MAY, OF COURSE, BE REFERRED TO THIS OFFICE FOR DECISION.