B-135400, AUG. 2, 1965
Highlights
AT THE TIME YOU PERFORMED THE TRAVEL IN QUESTION YOU WERE EMPLOYED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AT THE DETROIT PROCUREMENT DISTRICT AND YOU WERE BEING CONSIDERED FOR PROMOTION TO A SUPERVISORY POSITION AT LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT. IT APPEARS THAT THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TRAVEL WAS TO REPORT FOR A PERSONAL INTERVIEW AT LETTERKENNY AND TO INVESTIGATE THE LIVING CONDITIONS IN THE CHAMBERSBURG AREA. BEFORE YOU PERFORMED THE TRAVEL IN QUESTION YOU WERE ADVISED THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE REIMBURSED THE EXPENSES THEREOF. YOU BELIEVE THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARMY CIVILIAN PERSONNEL REGULATION CP1.4-7D YOU ARE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF YOUR TRAVEL. LACK OF OPPORTUNITY TO CONDUCT A PERSONAL INTERVIEW WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AS A REASON FOR NONSELECTION.'.
B-135400, AUG. 2, 1965
TO MR. GEORGE LOIK:
WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 1, 1965, CONCERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION DATED JANUARY 22, 1965, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE TRAVEL EXPENSES YOU INCURRED ON FEBRUARY 19 AND 20, 1964, FOR TRAVEL FROM DETROIT, MICHIGAN, TO CHAMBERSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA, AND RETURN.
AT THE TIME YOU PERFORMED THE TRAVEL IN QUESTION YOU WERE EMPLOYED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AT THE DETROIT PROCUREMENT DISTRICT AND YOU WERE BEING CONSIDERED FOR PROMOTION TO A SUPERVISORY POSITION AT LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT, CHAMBERSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA. IT APPEARS THAT THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TRAVEL WAS TO REPORT FOR A PERSONAL INTERVIEW AT LETTERKENNY AND TO INVESTIGATE THE LIVING CONDITIONS IN THE CHAMBERSBURG AREA. BEFORE YOU PERFORMED THE TRAVEL IN QUESTION YOU WERE ADVISED THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE REIMBURSED THE EXPENSES THEREOF, HOWEVER, YOU BELIEVE THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARMY CIVILIAN PERSONNEL REGULATION CP1.4-7D YOU ARE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF YOUR TRAVEL.
THE CITED REGULATION PROVIDES:
"NO CANDIDATE MAY BE REQUIRED TO TRAVEL FOR AN INTERVIEW AT HIS OWN PERSONAL EXPENSE. LACK OF OPPORTUNITY TO CONDUCT A PERSONAL INTERVIEW WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AS A REASON FOR NONSELECTION.'
YOUR CLAIM FOR PAYMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES WAS DENIED ON THE BASIS THAT YOU WERE NOT REQUIRED TO TRAVEL TO CHAMBERSBURG. WE NOTE IN THAT CONNECTION THAT YOUR FAILURE TO REPORT FOR A PERSONAL INTERVIEW COULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED AS A REASON FOR DENYING YOU THE PROMOTION FOR WHICH YOU WERE BEING CONSIDERED.
THE REGULATION IN QUESTION DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILL PAY THE TRAVEL EXPENSES OF ALL EMPLOYEES WHO TRAVEL TO OTHER INSTALLATIONS FOR PERSONAL INTERVIEWS IN CONNECTION WITH BEING CONSIDERED FOR PROMOTION. THAT REGULATION MERELY PROVIDES THAT EXPENSES WILL BE PAID IF TRAVEL FOR SUCH INTERVIEW IS REQUIRED BY THE ARMY.
SINCE THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY IN APPLYING THE REGULATION IN QUESTION HAS DETERMINED THAT YOU WERE NOT REQUIRED TO TRAVEL TO CHAMBERSBURG YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF THE TRAVEL EXPENSES YOU INCURRED. THEREFORE, THE SETTLEMENT OF JANUARY 22, 1965, MUST BE SUSTAINED.