B-153454, AUG. 1, 1969

B-153454, AUG. 1, 1969

CIVIL PAY - TRANSFERS - SUBSISTENCE AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES DECISION TO CERTIFYING OFFICER OF BUREAU OF RECLAMATION CONCERNING SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES AND DELIVERY EXPENSES INCIDENT TO TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEE FROM OGDEN, UTAH, TO AUBURN, CALIFORNIA. EMPLOYEE WHO WAS AUTHORIZED A MAXIMUM OF 10 DAYS SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES FOR TEMPORARY QUARTERS BUT WHO STAYED AT A MOTEL IN A CITY WHERE THE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS PERMITTED ONLY 5 DAYS MAXIMUM TIME MAY NOT HAVE TRAVEL ORDERS MODIFIED RETROACTIVELY TO DECREASE RIGHTS FIXED AND THEREFORE SINCE CLAIM DOES NOT EXCEED THAT AUTHORIZED IN ORDERS REIMBURSEMENT FOR ACTUAL EXPENSES FOR ENTIRE PERIOD DURING OCCUPANCY MAY BE PAID. WITH RESPECT TO DELIVERY CHARGE FOR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS STORED AT INTERMEDIATE POINT BETWEEN RESIDENCES, EXPENSE IS ALLOWABLE SINCE CHARGE WAS PROPER UNDER TARIFF RATES APPLICABLE TO DELIVERY FROM STORAGE OVER TRANSPORTATION COSTS.

TO MR. A. E. DAZELL:

THIS WILL REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 12, 1969 (REFERENCE 2-363), IN WHICH YOU REQUEST OUR ADVANCE DECISION AS TO CERTIFICATION FOR PAYMENT OF A RECLAIM FOR CERTAIN TRAVEL EXPENSES SUBMITTED BY MR. ROBERT F. MOORE IN CONNECTION WITH HIS TRANSFER OF OFFICIAL STATION FROM OGDEN, UTAH, TO AUBURN, CALIFORNIA, ON MARCH 23, 1969. YOUR QUESTIONS ARE DIRECTED TO (1) THE SUM CLAIMED BY MR. MOORE FOR SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES WHILE OCCUPYING TEMPORARY QUARTERS AT THE NEW OFFICIAL STATION; AND (2) AN AMOUNT REPRESENTING THE EXPENSE OF DELIVERY FROM STORAGE TO RESIDENCE OF A PORTION OF MR. MOORE'S HOUSEHOLD GOODS.

MR. MOORE'S TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION FOR TRANSFER INCLUDES, AMONG OTHER ITEMS, A MAXIMUM OF 10 DAYS SUBSISTENCE EXPENSE FOR HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY FOR TEMPORARY QUARTERS. HOWEVER, YOU SAY YOUR AGENCY HAS "CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED AN ESTABLISHED POLICY OF ALLOWING 5 DAYS MAXIMUM REIMBURSEMENT FOR AUTHORIZED OCCUPANCY OF TEMPORARY QUARTERS IN THE SACRAMENTO AREA, TO AN EMPLOYEE SEEKING RENTAL ACCOMMODATION" AND A MAXIMUM OF 10 DAYS IN THE AUBURN AREA, THE DIFFERENCE BEING BASED ON RELATIVE AVAILABILITY OF HOUSING IN THE DIFFERENT AREAS. SINCE MR. MOORE STAYED AT A MOTEL IN THE SACRAMENTO AREA RATHER THAN THE AUBURN AREA YOU APPLIED THE 5-DAY MAXIMUM RULE.

CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH TEMPORARY QUARTERS ARE OCCUPIED AND FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT HAS BEEN ALLOWED UNDER PROVISIONS OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56 VARY WIDELY. SECTION 2.5 OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56 PROVIDES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION IN AUTHORIZING REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCIDENT TO OCCUPANCY OF TEMPORARY QUARTERS IN THE INTEREST OF MINIMIZING, INSOFAR AS POSSIBLE, THE EXPENSE OF THIS TO THE GOVERNMENT. HOWEVER, IT IS AN ESTABLISHED RULE THAT TRAVEL ORDERS MAY NOT BE MODIFIED RETROACTIVELY TO INCREASE OR DECREASE RIGHTS FIXED UNDER APPLICABLE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS UNLESS AN ERROR IS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE ORDER AND ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT SOME PROVISION PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED AND DEFINITELY INTENDED HAS BEEN OMITTED THROUGH ERROR. SEE B-164940, AUGUST 28, 1968, AND CASES CITED THEREIN. SINCE MR. MOORE'S CLAIM FOR TEMPORARY QUARTERS ALLOWANCE DOES NOT EXCEED THAT AUTHORIZED BY HIS TRAVEL ORDERS AND SINCE UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WE FIND NO CLEAR CONFLICT WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY OUR VIEW IS THAT HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED REIMBURSEMENT FOR ACTUAL EXPENSES FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD DURING WHICH HE AND HIS FAMILY OCCUPIED MOTEL QUARTERS.

DECISIONS OF THIS OFFICE HAVE HELD THAT THE TIME DURING WHICH AN EMPLOYEE SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO OCCUPY TEMPORARY QUARTERS SHALL BE COMPUTED AS BEGINNING WITH THE QUARTER DAY AFTER THE LAST QUARTER DAY FOR WHICH PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS IS PAID AND ENDING AT THE END OF THE FULL DAY UPON WHICH THE EMPLOYEE MOVES INTO PERMANENT QUARTERS. (B-161348, MAY 31, 1967.) IN THIS CASE, THE LAST QUARTER DAY FOR WHICH THE EMPLOYEE WAS ENTITLED TO PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE WAS THE PERIOD 12 NOON TO 6 P.M. ON MARCH 26. HE IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF HIS EXPENSES FROM 6 P.M., MARCH 26 THROUGH THE FULL DAY OF APRIL 2 ON WHICH HE MOVED INTO AN APARTMENT, OR $242.18 AS HE CLAIMS, LESS THE SUM ($153.00) PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED.

WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED DISALLOWANCE OF $76.94 PAID BY THE EMPLOYEE FOR DELIVERY OF A PORTION, OR 2,230 POUNDS, OF HIS HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS FROM STORAGE AT ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA, TO HIS RESIDENCE AT CARMICHAEL, CALIFORNIA, ROSEVILLE APPEARS IN THE RAND MCNALLY ATLAS TO BE AN INTERMEDIATE POINT BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEE'S RESIDENCE AT CARMICHAEL AND HIS DUTY STATION AT AUBURN BEING 10 MILES DISTANT FROM THE FORMER AND 14 MILES FROM THE LATTER. FURTHER, IT APPEARS THAT HE STORED HIS GOODS AS NEARLY AT HIS POINT OF PERMANENT RESIDENCE AS POSSIBLE. (CF. B-160337, JANUARY 18, 1967, CITED IN YOUR LETTER WHERE STORAGE FACILITIES WERE USED AT A LOCATION 35 MILES DISTANT FROM THE DUTY STATION AND PLACE OF RESIDENCE.) THEREFORE, AND SINCE OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CHARGE FROM STORAGE WAS PROPERLY CHARGEABLE AT THE TARIFF RATE APPLICABLE TO DELIVERY TRANSPORTATION FROM STORAGE AND WAS OVER AND ABOVE TRANSPORTATION COSTS TO THE PLACE OF STORAGE, IT WOULD APPEAR PROPER TO ALLOW THE CHARGE INCURRED FOR THE MOVEMENT FROM ROSEVILLE TO CARMICHAEL AS A COST INCIDENTAL TO STORAGE, IF OTHERWISE PROPER.

THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED WITH YOUR LETTER ARE RETURNED HEREWITH AND ACTION ON THE RECLAIM SHOULD BE TAKEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING.