B-128764, AUGUST 27, 1956, 36 COMP. GEN. 171

B-128764, AUGUST 27, 1956, 36 COMP. GEN. 171

MARSHALS - TRAVELING EXPENSES - BETWEEN RESIDENCE AND REGULAR POST OF DUTY DEPUTY UNITED STATES MARSHALS WHO RESIDE OUTSIDE THEIR HEADQUARTERS CITIES AND ARE REQUIRED TO RETURN TO THEIR HEADQUARTERS CITIES AFTER HOURS OR ON A SATURDAY OR SUNDAY TO PERFORM REGULAR, OVERTIME OR CALL BACK OVERTIME DUTY MAY NOT BE PAID MILEAGE FOR THE TRAVEL BETWEEN THEIR HOMES AND HEADQUARTERS. DEPUTY UNITED STATES MARSHALS WHO LIVE IN THEIR HEADQUARTERS CITIES DURING THE WORKWEEK BECAUSE THEY MAINTAIN RESIDENCES TOO FAR AWAY TO PERMIT COMMUTING DAILY MAY NOT BE PAID MILEAGE FOR TRAVEL TO SERVE PROCESSES EN ROUTE TO THEIR RESIDENCES OR HEADQUARTERS DURING THE WEEKEND.

TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AUGUST 27, 1956:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE LETTER DATED JULY 19, 1956 (FILE A3-5) FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL REQUESTING A DECISION AS TO WHETHER CERTAIN TRAVEL OF DEPUTY UNITED STATES MARSHALS, WHICH IS BETWEEN THEIR RESIDENCES AND OFFICIAL HEADQUARTERS, CAN BE COUNTED FOR MILEAGE ALLOWANCE PURPOSES.

GENERAL AUTHORIZATION HAS BEEN GRANTED FOR DEPUTIES TO USE PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILES IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES FOR WHICH THEY RECEIVE UP TO A MAXIMUM OF TEN CENTS PER MILE FOR THE TRAVEL. MANY OF THEM RESIDE OUTSIDE THEIR HEADQUARTERS CITIES AND MAY TRAVEL UP TO FORTY MILES DAILY TO WORK. FREQUENTLY THEY SERVE PROCESS EN ROUTE TO WORK OR HOME. IT APPEARS THAT IN SUCH CASES, ONLY THE MILEAGE IN EXCESS OF THAT NORMALLY TRAVELED BETWEEN THE OFFICES AND RESIDENCES IS ALLOWED IN LINE WITH OUR DECISIONS.

THE LETTER SAYS THAT OF PRIMARY CONCERN IS WHETHER THE BETWEEN HOME AND OFFICE NON-ALLOWABLE MILEAGE RULE IS APPLICABLE IN ALL CASES OR RESTRICTED TO TRAVEL IN REPORTING FOR WORK IN THE MORNING AND RETURNING HOME AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE DAY'S WORK, I.E., THE REGULAR HOURS OF DUTY MONDAYS THROUGH FRIDAYS. THE QUESTIONS RAISED ARE AS FOLLOWS:

SPECIFICALLY IF A DEPUTY IS REQUIRED TO RETURN TO THE HEADQUARTERS OFFICE OR CITY AFTER HOURS TO PRODUCE PRISONERS AT A POLICE DEPARTMENT "SHOW-UP" OR TO PERFORM OTHER OFFICIAL ASSIGNMENTS, WOULD IT BE PROPER TO PAY MILEAGE FOR THE TRAVEL FROM HIS HOME TO THE HEADQUARTERS CITY AND RETURN? IF NOT, WOULD THE SAME HOLD TRUE IF SUCH TRAVEL WERE REQUIRED ON A SATURDAY OR SUNDAY, NONWORK DAYS?

THE RULE IS WELL-ESTABLISHED THAT IT IS THE DUTY AND OBLIGATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO PLACE THEMSELVES AT THEIR REGULAR PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT AND TO RETURN TO THEIR HOMES AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE. THE FACT THAT SUCH EXPENSES MAY BE INCREASED BY EMERGENCY CONDITIONS OR THE PERFORMANCE OF OVERTIME WORK DOES NOT CHANGE THE RULE, 16 COMP. GEN. 64; 27 ID. 1; AND B-117159, OCTOBER 20, 1953. THE RULE IS FOR APPLICATION REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYEES RESIDE OUTSIDE THEIR HEADQUARTERS CITIES AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER REGULAR, OVERTIME, OR, AS HERE, CALL-BACK OVERTIME DUTY IS PERFORMED. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH PARTS OF THE QUESTION ARE ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE.

THE LETTER SAYS THAT ANOTHER TYPE OF SITUATION INVOLVES DEPUTIES WHO MAINTAIN RESIDENCES TOO FAR AWAY FROM THEIR HEADQUARTERS OFFICES TO PERMIT COMMUTING DAILY. CONSEQUENTLY, THEY LIVE IN THE HEADQUARTERS CITIES DURING THE WORKWEEK AND USUALLY RETURN TO THEIR HOMES AFTER QUITTING TIME FRIDAY AFTERNOONS. FREQUENTLY, THEY SERVE PROCESS ON THOSE TRIPS. THE QUESTION IS RAISED AS FOLLOWS:

WOULD IT BE PROPER TO ALLOW MILEAGE FOR ALL NECESSARY TRAVEL TO SERVE PROCESS AND AN EQUAL NUMBER OF MILES COVERING THE RETURN MILEAGE DISTANCES TO THE HEADQUARTERS OFFICES, BEARING IN MIND THAT A PART OR ALL OF THE TRAVEL MAY BE ON THE NORMALLY TRAVELED ROUTES TO THEIR RESIDENCE AND THE FURTHER FACT THAT THEY DO NOT RETURN TO THEIR OFFICES UNTIL MONDAY MORNINGS?

DEPUTIES SERVING PROCESS EN ROUTE TO THEIR HEADQUARTERS OR TO THEIR RESIDENCES ARE ENTITLED ONLY TO THE MILEAGE IN EXCESS OF THAT NORMALLY TRAVELED IN REPORTING TO THEIR HEADQUARTERS AND IN RETURNING TO THEIR RESIDENCES. B-124671, NOVEMBER 28, 1955. THE FACT THAT DEPUTIES, AS HERE, MAINTAIN MORE THAN ONE RESIDENCE FOR PERSONAL CONVENIENCE MAY NOT OPERATE TO INCREASE THEIR RIGHTS IN THIS RESPECT. COMPARE 30 COMP. GEN. 443, AND CASES CITED THEREIN, CONCERNING THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION IN LEAVE OF ABSENCE CASES BEING RESTRICTED TO THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSES RESULTING FROM PERFORMANCE OF TEMPORARY DUTY AT TERMINATION OF LEAVE STATUS. ACCORDINGLY, THE QUESTION IS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE.