B-147375, DEC. 26, 1961
Highlights
WAS SUSTAINED IN OUR DECISION OF NOVEMBER 29. WAS YOUR FIRST DUTY STATION. IT IS AN ESTABLISHED RULE THAT AN EMPLOYEE MUST BEAR THE EXPENSE OF REPORTING TO HIS FIRST DUTY STATION WHERE HIS COMPENSATION IS FIXED BY LAW OR REGULATION. WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY DETERMINED TO HAVE BEEN MADE AT YOUR REQUEST. THAT SECTION OF THE ACT PROHIBITS PAYMENT OF EXPENSES INCIDENT TO TRANSFER WHEN THE TRANSFER IS MADE PRIMARILY FOR THE CONVENIENCE OR BENEFIT OF THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OR AT HIS REQUEST. SINCE JACKSON WAS YOUR FIRST DUTY STATION. THE QUESTION OF FOR WHOSE BENEFIT THE ASSIGNMENT AT THAT LOCATION WAS MADE IS NOT DETERMINATIVE REGARDING THAT PART OF YOUR CLAIM RELATING TO EXPENSES INCIDENT TO YOUR MOVING TO JACKSON.
B-147375, DEC. 26, 1961
TO MR. CLEMENT L. MCEACHERN:
YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 5, 1961, REQUESTS FURTHER REVIEW OF YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE TRANSFER OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS FROM FOUNTAIN INN, SOUTH CAROLINA, TO JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, SUBSEQUENT STORAGE THEREOF, AND ADDITIONAL CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTATION FROM JACKSON TO CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA.
DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM BY OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1961, WAS SUSTAINED IN OUR DECISION OF NOVEMBER 29, 1961, TO YOU, FIRST, BECAUSE JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, WAS YOUR FIRST DUTY STATION, AND, IT IS AN ESTABLISHED RULE THAT AN EMPLOYEE MUST BEAR THE EXPENSE OF REPORTING TO HIS FIRST DUTY STATION WHERE HIS COMPENSATION IS FIXED BY LAW OR REGULATION; AND, SECOND, BECAUSE YOUR REASSIGNMENT FROM JACKSON TO CHARLOTTE, WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY DETERMINED TO HAVE BEEN MADE AT YOUR REQUEST, AND PRIMARILY FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 1 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES ACT OF 1946, 60 STAT. 806, AS AMENDED, 5 U.S.C. 73B-1. THAT SECTION OF THE ACT PROHIBITS PAYMENT OF EXPENSES INCIDENT TO TRANSFER WHEN THE TRANSFER IS MADE PRIMARILY FOR THE CONVENIENCE OR BENEFIT OF THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OR AT HIS REQUEST.
SINCE JACKSON WAS YOUR FIRST DUTY STATION, THE QUESTION OF FOR WHOSE BENEFIT THE ASSIGNMENT AT THAT LOCATION WAS MADE IS NOT DETERMINATIVE REGARDING THAT PART OF YOUR CLAIM RELATING TO EXPENSES INCIDENT TO YOUR MOVING TO JACKSON.
YOUR SUPPOSITION THAT MR. SIEGAL WAS ORALLY CONTACTED IN CONNECTION WITH OUR REVIEW OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM IS INCORRECT. THE MATTER WAS HANDLED ENTIRELY ON THE BASIS OF THE WRITTEN RECORD WHICH CONTAINS AN OFFICIAL REPORT DATED AUGUST 21, 1961, SIGNED BY THE ACTING DIRECTOR, OPERATIONS DIVISION (MR. ALLEN N. SWAIN) AND A COPY OF A LETTER FROM MR. SIEGAL TO YOU DATED JUNE 26, 1961, WHICH YOU FURNISHED TO OUR OFFICE. THE REPORT OF AUGUST 21, 1961, IS THE LATEST COMMUNICATION WE HAVE HAD WITH THE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE.
THEREFORE, WE FIND NO BASIS FOR DISTURBING THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED IN OUR DECISION OF NOVEMBER 29, 1961.