B-138675, MARCH 26, 1959, 38 COMP. GEN. 631

B-138675, MARCH 26, 1959, 38 COMP. GEN. 631

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL - OVERSEAS - TRAVEL EXPENSES - HOME LEAVE - TO OTHER THAN RESIDENCE AN OVERSEAS EMPLOYEE WHO WITH HIS FAMILY IS AUTHORIZED HOME LEAVE TRAVEL TO PLACE OF RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BUT WHO SPENDS THE ENTIRE LEAVE IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY WITHOUT ENTERING THE UNITED STATES HAS NOT MET THE REQUIREMENT IN THE REGULATIONS THAT TRAVEL TO A LOCATION OTHER THAN ACTUAL RESIDENCE MUST BE TO A PLACE "WITHIN THE COUNTRY IN WHICH THE PLACE OF ACTUAL RESIDENCE IS LOCATED," AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT FOR ANY TRAVEL EXPENSES.

TO CAPTAIN R. E. CALL AN, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, MARCH 26, 1959:

ON FEBRUARY 9, 1959, THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF FINANCE FORWARDED HERE YOUR REQUEST OF AUGUST 8, 1958, FOR ADVANCE DECISION ON THE HOME LEAVE TRAVEL CLAIM OF MR. JOHN E. SIMPSON, A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE AT YOUR HEADQUARTERS.

THE FACTS, AS CONTAINED IN THE FILE TRANSMITTED, SHOW THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS AUTHORIZED TO TRAVEL WITH HIS FAMILY ON 45 DAYS' REEMPLOYMENT LEAVE FROM HIS PERMANENT DUTY STATION, KHARIAN, PAKISTAN, TO HIS PLACE OF RESIDENCE AT CONCORD, CALIFORNIA, AND RETURN TO HIS NEW PERMANENT DUTY STATION AT KARACHI, PAKISTAN. MR. SIMPSON AND HIS FAMILY WENT FIRST TO KARACHI ON TEMPORARY DUTY ARRIVING ON NOVEMBER 15, 1957. EXPENSE OF THAT TRAVEL IS NOT INVOLVED HERE SINCE IT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS CHANGE OF STATION TRAVEL. THEY LEFT KARACHI ON NOVEMBER 20, 1957, AND ARRIVED AT FRANKFURT, GERMANY, ON NOVEMBER 21. INSTEAD OF CONTINUING THEIR TRAVEL TO THE UNITED STATES DIRECT FROM FRANKFURT, MR. SIMPSON AND HIS FAMILY WENT TO MUNICH TO VISIT HIS WIFE'S FAMILY. THEY REMAINED IN MUNICH FOR ABOUT THREE WEEKS (ONE WEEK LONGER THAN EXPECTED BECAUSE OF ONE CHILD'S ILLNESS) UNTIL DECEMBER 14 WHEN THEY DEPARTED FOR PARIS BY PRIVATE CAR WITH FRIENDS. MR. SIMPSON SAID HE INTENDED TO REQUEST TRANSPORTATION FROM PARIS RATHER THAN FROM FRANKFURT TO THE UNITED STATES BUT THAT, DURING HIS STAY IN PARIS WHICH WAS ABOUT ONE WEEK, THE ENTIRE FAMILY BECAME ILL AND HE DECIDED TO TAKE THEM TO LONDON WHERE THEY HAD RELATIVES AND FRIENDS AND WHERE HE CONSIDERED BETTER MEDICAL TREATMENT COULD BE OBTAINED. THEY TRAVELED TO LONDON ON DECEMBER 23. MR. SIMPSON SAID THAT BY THE TIME THE DOCTOR PERMITTED THE FAMILY TO TRAVEL, HIS LEAVE PERIOD HAD DIMINISHED TO THE POINT THAT COMPLETION OF THE TRIP TO THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT POSSIBLE. THEY LEFT LONDON ON JANUARY 8 RETURNING TO KARACHI AND THEY ARRIVED THERE ON JANUARY 10.

MR. SIMPSON SIGNED A NEW 18-MONTH CONTRACT BEFORE DEPARTING ON THE TRIP AND HE AGREES TO ACCEPT THAT TRIP AND THE LEAVE INVOLVED AS THE REEMPLOYMENT, OR HOME, LEAVE DUE HIM AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE PREVIOUS CONTRACT. HIS CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF HOME LEAVE INVOLVES ONLY THE PORTION OF HIS TRIP FROM KARACHI TO FRANKFURT AND RETURN. THE OTHER TRAVEL WAS APPARENTLY AT HIS OWN EXPENSE AND THE PORTION OF THE COMMERCIAL PLANE TICKET PURCHASED BY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION REQUEST FOR TRAVEL FROM FRANKFURT TO CONCORD, CALIFORNIA, AND RETURN TO FRANKFURT WAS TURNED BACK TO THE AIRLINE FOR CREDIT.

YOU ASK THREE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:

A. IS THE JOURNEY PERFORMED BY MR. SIMPSON AND DEPENDENTS AS STATED IN THE CLAIM PROPERLY CHARGEABLE AS REEMPLOYMENT LEAVE?

B. SINCE MR. SIMPSON DID NOT COMPLETE THE JOURNEY TO THE LEAVE ADDRESS IN THE UNITED STATES, IS REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORIZED FOR PER DIEM AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES INCURRED?

C. IN THE EVENT THAT THE JOURNEY FROM KARACHI, PAKISTAN, TO FRANKFURT, GERMANY, IS NOT CHARGEABLE AS REEMPLOYMENT LEAVE, IS THE COST OF TRAVEL FURNISHED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSES CHARGEABLE TO MR. SIMPSON?

TITLE 5 OF THE U.S.C. SECTION 73B-3 PROVIDES:

* * * THAT EXPENSES OF ROUND TRIP TRAVEL OF EMPLOYEE AND TRANSPORTATION OF IMMEDIATE FAMILY BUT EXCLUDING HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS, FROM THEIR POSTS OF DUTY OUTSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES TO THE PLACES OF ACTUAL RESIDENCE AT TIME OF APPOINTMENT OR TRANSFER TO SUCH OVERSEAS POSTS OF DUTY, SHALL BE ALLOWED IN THE CASE OF PERSONS WHO HAVE SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED AN AGREED PERIOD OF SERVICE OVERSEAS AND ARE RETURNING TO THEIR ACTUAL PLACE OF RESIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING LEAVE PRIOR TO SERVING ANOTHER TOUR OF DUTY AT THE SAME OR SOME OTHER OVERSEAS POST, UNDER A NEW WRITTEN AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BEFORE DEPARTING FROM THE OVERSEAS POST: *

SECTION 27 (B) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9805, AS ADDED BY BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR A-4, MAY 2, 1955, WHICH LIMITS TRAVEL UNDER THE ABOVE AUTHORITY, PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART:

* * * IF LEAVE IS TAKEN AT ANOTHER LOCATION WITHIN THE COUNTRY, TERRITORY, OR POSSESSION IN WHICH SUCH PLACE OF ACTUAL RESIDENCE IS LOCATED, THE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES ALLOWABLE SHALL NOT EXCEED THOSE ALLOWED OVER A USUALLY TRAVELED ROUTE BETWEEN THE POST OF DUTY AND SUCH PLACE OF ACTUAL RESIDENCE AND RETURN TO THE SAME OR A DIFFERENT POST OF DUTY OUTSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES.

THE STATUTE DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE'S TRAVEL EXPENSES ON HOME LEAVE EXCEPT TO HIS PLACE OF ACTUAL RESIDENCE. THE STATUTORY REGULATIONS, HOWEVER, OBVIOUSLY CONTEMPLATE THAT AN EMPLOYEE MAY REASONABLY WISH TO TAKE HIS LEAVE AT ANOTHER LOCATION AND SO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF HIS TRAVEL EXPENSES TO ANOTHER LOCATION WITH CERTAIN LIMITATIONS, ONE OF WHICH IS PARTICULARLY PERTINENT TO MR. SIMPSON'S TRAVEL. INCLUDED IN THOSE LIMITATIONS IS THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE OTHER LOCATION BE "WITHIN THE COUNTRY, TERRITORY, OR POSSESSION IN WHICH SUCH PLACE OF ACTUAL RESIDENCE IS LOCATED.'

IN VIEW OF THAT REQUIREMENT IN THE STATUTORY REGULATION, WHICH HAS THE SAME FORCE AND EFFECT AS A STATUTE, AND SINCE MR. SIMPSON AND HIS FAMILY SPENT THEIR ENTIRE LEAVE IN EUROPE WITHOUT ENTERING THE COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE, WE FEEL THAT UPON THE PRESENT STATE OF THE RECORD NONE OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON THAT TRIP MAY BE PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT. SEE 37 COMP. GEN. 113; ID. 119 AND B-133696, SEPTEMBER 23, 1957. THEREFORE, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NOW APPEARING YOUR QUESTIONS A AND B ARE ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE AND QUESTION C IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.