B-112754, DECEMBER 8, 1952, 32 COMP. GEN. 280

B-112754, DECEMBER 8, 1952, 32 COMP. GEN. 280

TRAVELING EXPENSES - TRANSFERS - LEAVE ON ARRIVAL AT DUTY STATION - RESIGNATION PRIOR TO REPORTING FOR DUTY WHILE SECTION 1 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES ACT OF 1946, AND SECTION 4 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9805, AS AMENDED, PROMULGATING REGULATIONS UNDER THE ACT, PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE WHEN "IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT," AN EMPLOYEE WHO TRAVELED TO THE CITY TO WHICH HE WAS TRANSFERRED AND REQUESTED TO BE PLACED ON SICK LEAVE BUT WHO RESIGNED PRIOR TO ACTUAL ENTRANCE UPON DUTY, MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS HAVING PERFORMED TRAVEL "IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT" SO AS TO BE ALLOWED REIMBURSEMENT UNDER THE ACT FOR THE TRAVELING EXPENSES.

ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL YATES TO ETHELREDA C. FESMIRE, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, DECEMBER 8, 1952:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 10, 1952, TRANSMITTING A VOUCHER IN FAVOR OF PHILIP LICARI, COVERING HIS CLAIM FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES INCURRED INCIDENT TO A PERMANENT TRANSFER OF DUTY STATION FROM SANTURCE, PUERTO RICO, TO CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, AND REQUESTING A DECISION AS TO WHETHER THE VOUCHER MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT. THE VOUCHER IS FOR REIMBURSEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $6.25, AND FOR OTHER TRAVEL EXPENSES REPRESENTED BY TRANSPORTATION REQUEST NO. LR 17,929, IN THE AMOUNT OF $145.10.

YOU STATE THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH TRANSFER ORDER NO. 53-327A, MR. LICARI DEPARTED FROM SANTURCE, PUERTO RICO, AT 11:45 P.M. SEPTEMBER 1, 1952, TO ACCOMPLISH HIS TRANSFER TO CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, AND ARRIVED IN CHICAGO AT 8 P.M. ON SEPTEMBER 2, 1952, AFTER HAVING REMAINED IN NEW YORK FROM 6 A.M. UNTIL 5 P.M. ON SEPTEMBER 2, 1952, FOR PERSONAL REASONS; THAT ON SEPTEMBER 3, 1952, HE REPORTED BY TELEPHONE TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'S REGIONAL OFFICE IN CHICAGO, AND REQUESTED TO BE RECORDED AS ABSENT ON SICK LEAVE, BUT WAS RECORDED AS ABSENT ON ANNUAL LEAVE PENDING RECEIPT OF A SATISFACTORY MEDICAL CERTIFICATE; AND THAT WITHOUT RETURNING TO DUTY, HE SUBMITTED HIS RESIGNATION, EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 7, 1952, AND HIS RESIGNATION WAS ACCEPTED.

YOUR DOUBT IN THE MATTER IS "AS TO WHETHER A TRANSFER IS CONSUMMATED WHEN THE EMPLOYEE ARRIVES AT THE CITY TO WHICH HE IS TRANSFERRED BUT DOES NOT ACTUALLY REPORT FOR DUTY AND SUBSEQUENTLY RESIGNS WITHOUT HAVING REPORTED FOR DUTY.' IN OTHER WORDS, THE DOUBT MAY BE STATED TO BE WHETHER THE TRANSFER WAS IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT.

SECTION 1 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES ACT OF 1946, 60 STAT. 806, AND SECTION 4 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9805, PROMULGATING REGULATIONS UNDER THE ACT, PROVIDE FOR TRANSFERS OF EMPLOYEES AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE WHEN "IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT.' THIS OFFICE TAKES THE POSITION THAT WHERE, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, AN EMPLOYEE TRAVELS TO THE CITY TO WHICH HE IS TRANSFERRED AND RESIGNS PRIOR TO HIS ACTUAL ENTRANCE UPON DUTY, SUCH TRAVEL PROPERLY MAY NOT, IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONCLUSIVE SHOWING TO THE CONTRARY, BE REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN PERFORMED IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES, WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE CITED LAW. ACCORDINGLY, ON THE BASIS OF THE PRESENT RECORD, THE SUBMITTED VOUCHER, WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH, MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.

ALSO, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT THE USE OF A GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION REQUEST FOR THE INVOLVED TRAVEL UNDER THE RECITED FACTS CONSTITUTES AN UNAUTHORIZED CHARGE AGAINST APPROPRIATED FUNDS AND APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO OBTAIN REFUND FROM THE TRAVELER OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED. THIS OFFICE SHOULD BE ADVISED WHEN SUCH ACTION SHALL HAVE BEEN TAKEN.