B-244256 June 14, 1991

B-244256 June 14, 1991

General Services Administration (GSA) asks whether personal expenses suffered by federal civilian employees, because approved annual leave is canceled due to the press of government business, may be reimbursed under the Military Personnel and Civilian Employee's Claims Act of 1964, as amended, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3721 (1988). The GSA is advised that the legislative history of the 1964 Act and our prior decisions interpreting the Act, indicate that it is intended to reimburse employees for the loss of their tangible personal property incurred incident to the performance of their official duties. The legislative history does not indicate that the Congress intended that employees be entitled to recover personal expenses or losses of intangible property, such as non-refundable airline tickets, incurred as the result of an emergency callback to duty. Therefore, the Act does not appear to cover purely personal expenses or intangible personal property losses. The GSA is advised that it may submit a specific claim to this Office for a decision as to whether such personal expenses may be recovered under the 1964 Act.

Mr. William B. Early, Jr. Acting Comptroller General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405

Dear Mr. Early:

We refer to your letter of May 20, 1991, in which you request a determination as to whether the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claim Act of 1964, as amended, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3721 (1988), may be applied to claims by federal employees for personal losses incurred when annual leave is canceled due to the press of government business.

You point out that in numerous Comptroller General decisions, we have consistently held that personal expenses, such as forfeited hotel room deposits, dependent's travel costs, and increased costs for alternate flight reservations, do not become a government obligation upon the cancellation of approval annual leave and may not be reimbursed. /1/

You state that the basis for these decisions seems to have been the lack of any specific legal authority for agencies to make reimbursement of such personal losses. You question whether we considered the Act of 1964 in our prior decisions since the Act authorizes agencies to settle and pay claims for damage to, or loss of, personal property incident to service. You contend that since the losses in question are due to the "press of business" and the subsequent cancellation of the employee's annual leave by the agency, the losses would appear to be incident to service as required by the Act.

You refer to a recent incident at the General Services Administration (GSA) in which an employee, through no fault of her own, incurred the loss of a non-refundable airline ticket. You state that as a result of our decisions, GSA is unable to reimburse her for a financial loss which was the direct result of the agency's action to cancel her approved annual leave. You ask whether the Act of 1964 might offer an avenue of relief.

In the absence of a specific voucher or claim, we are not issuing a formal decision on your request at this time. However, the following information is offered for your consideration.

In our previously cited decisions, we have stated that our research has not revealed any law or regulation under which we may authorize the payment of the additional personal travel expenses incurred by employees resulting from an emergency callback to duty.

The Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act of 1964 authorizes the President to prescribe uniform policies to implement the statute with respect to civilian agencies. /2/ This authority has not been exercised, however. Therefore, each agency must determine its own policies subject to the statutory criteria.

As to the type of losses cognizable under the Act, the Act of 1964 was enacted to extend coverage to all federal civilian employees, previously afforded only to military personnel. The legislation had a history dating back to 1952 when over 100 employees of the Civil Aeronautics Administration suffered losses of personal property in a typhoon at Wake Island while living in government quarters. Other examples of losses of personal property by employees occurred when several employees suffered loss of their personal belongings when they were forced to evacuate from an aircraft in which they were traveling in the course of their duties. Other employees had sustained losses through theft of their personally owned hand tools stored at their place of employment provided by the government. /3/ Additional examples discussed in the legislative history involved employees who suffered personal property losses when their personal belongings, which were stored in government buildings, were consumed by fire. /4/ There is nothing in the legislative history of the Act to indicate that the Congress intended that employees would be entitled to recover personal expenses or losses of intangible property incurred as a result of emergency callback to duty.

Most claims under the Act involve loss or damage suffered in the shipment of personal property in connection with a change of duty station. Loss or damage to property incident to authorized contemporary storage, as well as loss or damage to a privately owned motor vehicle while used for official business, are also cognizable under the Act. /5/

In this regard, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations governing claims of OPM employees state that intangible property claims such as bank books, checks, promissory notes, stock certificates, bonds, bills of lading, warehouse receipts, baggage checks, insurance policies, money orders, and travelers' checks, are not allowable. /6/

The General Accounting Office (GAO) has a similar regulatory provision. /7/ The GAO Order also states that items claimed must be tangible personal property of the employee. /8/ Since the losses that occur on non-refundable airline tickets are properly categorized as intangible, rather than tangible, they would appear not to be allowable under the 1964 Act. Further, the GAO regulations define damage or loss as "[t]otal or partial destruction, capture, or abandonment . . ." and lists tangible personal property items owned by GAO employees which are allowable, with maximum payments payable for each item. /9/ The listing would does not include non-refundable airline tickets or similar items.

Finally, based upon the language in our decisions cited earlier, this Office views non-refundable airline tickets purchased for vacation purposes as purely personal expenses. We have not, however, specifically addressed the issue of whether such expenses could be recovered under the 1964 Act. With respect to the specific claim referred to in your letter, or any other claim, you may wish to submit that claim to this Office for a Comptroller General decision.

We hope that the foregoing is responsive to your inquiry.

Sincerely yours,

Robert L. Higgins Associate General Counsel

1. Larry Plummer, 64 Comp.Gen. 28 (1984); John W. Keys, III, 60 Comp. Gen. 629 (1981); Earl J. Barlow, B-241249, Feb 15, 1991; Alvin N. Kirsch, B-231458, Sept. 9, 1988; Dr. Karl G. Kessler, B-190755, June 15, 1978; B-176721, Nov. 9, 1972.

2. 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3721(j).

3. See also Linda M. Saeqer, B-241443, Mar. 14, 1991.

4. H.R. Rep. No. 460, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963).

5. Scope of Discretion under 31 U.S.C., 62 Comp.Gen. 641 (1983). 6. 5 C.F.R. Sec. 180.105(a)(12) (l99l).

7. GAO Order 026.1, chap. 3, sec. 3a, Apr. 7, 1983.

8. GAO Order 0267.1, chap. 3, sec. 2a, Apr. 7, 1983.

9. GAO Order 0267.1, chap. 1, sec. fig; and App. 2, Apr. 7, 1983 .