B-123733, JUN. 15, 1955
Highlights
SDA: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 14. REQUESTING A DECISION WHETHER PAYMENT IS AUTHORIZED ON AN ENCLOSED VOUCHER STATED IN FAVOR OF MR. HE STATES THAT HE WAS NOT RELEASED FROM HIS OLD STATION UNTIL THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS. WAS DUE TO REPORT TO HIS NEW STATION ON THE FOLLOWING MONDAY AT 8:00 A.M. ON SUNDAY TO SEE THAT THE HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WERE LOADED. IN THAT DECISION IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE TRAVEL OF AN EMPLOYEE AND HIS DEPENDENTS TO A NEW DUTY STATION IS PERFORMED BY MEANS OF MORE THAN ONE PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE. UNLESS IT IS SHOWN THAT TRANSPORTATION IN ONE AUTOMOBILE WAS NOT FEASIBLE. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE EMPLOYEE'S EXPLANATION AS TO WHY HIS WIFE DID NOT ACCOMPANY HIM ON THE DATE HE TRAVELED TO HIS NEW STATION APPEARS REASONABLE AND MAY BE ACCEPTED AS ESTABLISHING THAT TRANSPORTATION OF HIM AND HIS WIFE IN ONE AUTOMOBILE WAS NOT FEASIBLE.
B-123733, JUN. 15, 1955
TO MR. W. E. PILCHER, SDA:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 14, 1955, FILE NO. SWLCB, FORWARDED BY SECOND ENDORSEMENT OF MARCH 24, 1955, FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, REQUESTING A DECISION WHETHER PAYMENT IS AUTHORIZED ON AN ENCLOSED VOUCHER STATED IN FAVOR OF MR. JOE M. PRESSLER, IN THE AMOUNT OF $25.50. THE VOUCHER REPRESENTS MILEAGE FOR TRAVEL OF THE CLAIMANT'S WIFE BY PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE FROM AUSTIN, TEXAS, TO LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, UPON HIS OFFICIAL CHANGE OF STATION.
TRAVEL ORDER DATED DECEMBER 14, 1954, DIRECTED MR. PRESSLER TO MAKE A CHANGE OF OFFICIAL STATION FROM AUSTIN, TEXAS, TO LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, AND AUTHORIZED TRAVEL BY PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE AT THE RATE OF $0.07 PER MILE FOR HIMSELF. THE ORDER STATED THAT MRS. PRESSLER WOULD TRAVEL AT A LATER DATE BY PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE ON A MILEAGE BASIS NOT TO EXCEED COST BY COMMON CARRIER. THE EMPLOYEE LEFT AUSTIN ON DECEMBER 18, 1954, AND ARRIVED AT LITTLE ROCK ON DECEMBER 19, 1954. HIS WIFE LEFT AUSTIN ON DECEMBER 19, 1954, AND ARRIVED AT LITTLE ROCK ON DECEMBER 20, 1954.
IN EXPLANATION OF THE SEPARATE TRAVEL OF THE EMPLOYEE AND HIS WIFE, HE STATES THAT HE WAS NOT RELEASED FROM HIS OLD STATION UNTIL THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1954, AND WAS DUE TO REPORT TO HIS NEW STATION ON THE FOLLOWING MONDAY AT 8:00 A.M. DUE TO THE DISTANCE OF 515 MILES, ALLOWING AN OVERNIGHT STOP EN ROUTE, AND CONSIDERING THE POSSIBILITY OF CAR TROUBLE, HE CONSIDERED IT BEST TO LEAVE HIS OLD STATION ON SATURDAY MORNING. MRS. PRESSLER REMAINED AT THE OLD STATION UNTIL 1:30 P.M. ON SUNDAY TO SEE THAT THE HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WERE LOADED, UTILITIES TURNED OFF, AND TO ATTEND TO THE FINAL CLEANUP OF THE HOUSE AND PREMISES.
YOUR DOUBT IN THE MATTER ARISES BECAUSE OF THE DECISION OF AUGUST 11, 1947, B-67806 (27 COMP. GEN. 57). IN THAT DECISION IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE TRAVEL OF AN EMPLOYEE AND HIS DEPENDENTS TO A NEW DUTY STATION IS PERFORMED BY MEANS OF MORE THAN ONE PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE, MILEAGE MAY BE ALLOWED FOR THE USE OF ONLY ONE AUTOMOBILE, UNLESS IT IS SHOWN THAT TRANSPORTATION IN ONE AUTOMOBILE WAS NOT FEASIBLE, EVEN THOUGH THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE ENTIRE FAMILY BY RAIL WOULD EXCEED THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF MILEAGE FOR THE USE OF MORE THAN ONE AUTOMOBILE.
IN THE INSTANT CASE THE EMPLOYEE'S EXPLANATION AS TO WHY HIS WIFE DID NOT ACCOMPANY HIM ON THE DATE HE TRAVELED TO HIS NEW STATION APPEARS REASONABLE AND MAY BE ACCEPTED AS ESTABLISHING THAT TRANSPORTATION OF HIM AND HIS WIFE IN ONE AUTOMOBILE WAS NOT FEASIBLE.
ACCORDINGLY, THE VOUCHER REPRESENTING THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE FOR TRANSPORTATION OF MRS. PRESSLER IS RETURNED AND MAY BE CREDITED FOR PAYMENT, IF OTHERWISE CORRECT.